12.5 



1i:"';^' 

^'^'x: 



K^ 



x^ 



Bees tbe HReformation 
1Reed IReformfng ? 



I 



®r 



mnbat Cburcb 
Sball H Join ? 



^MBSMi^HilMii 



X. 1. Coppadc 



Does the Reformation 
Need Reforming? 

WHAT CHURCH SHALL I JOIN? 





By Di p COPPAGE 



i^IRST EDITION. 

CRAWFORDSVir^I^E, IND., 

1904. 



^ ■ 3 < gii ' .. .jji - ' awju-w gogf 



LIBRARY cf CONGRESS 

Two OoDies Received 

APR 25 1 904 
Copyrlsrht Entry 

CLAS^ o- XXc. ^4o. 

^ S ^ ^ 

COPY B 



Onpyriglited April/ if04, 
By L. J. Coppage, 






APOLOGY. 

It is probable that a generous and forbearing public will de- 
mand an apology for the appearance of a new treatise on this 
vexed subject, — a subject, whose separate parts have, in turn, 
been made to do service for the sects of all shades of ortho- 
doxy and heterodoxy. 

That this work is not sent out on a financial, a literary, or a 
proselyting mission, will, we sincerely believe, be conceded by 
every candid Bible student, after having carefully perused its 
pages. 

The writer has no connection with, nor special interest in any 
of the religious parties or sects which are candidates for popu- 
lar favor; he has neither the ambition nor the scholarship requi- 
site to literary success ; he promises to supply copies of the 
work to such as will carefully read and consider the sugges- 
tions therein contained, regardless of their ability to pay for 
the same, while the edition lasts, and he intends to devote all 
proceeds to the printing of subsequent editions during the con- 
tinuance of a demand therefor. 

From the foregoing the inference is well nigh conclusive that 
the writer contemplates neither the acquisition of wealth or 
fame from this source, and that he is comparatively an indiffer- 
ent spectator of the strife among the religious sects for numeri- 
cal, financial and ecclesiastical supremacy, and has, therefore, 
no motive for proselyting. 

It has long been a well recognized principle of metaphysics 
that our personal interests are enormously potent in closing our 
minds to all opposing truth. The obstinacy with which relig- 
ious parties cling to the * 'traditions of the fathers'* is conclu- 
sive evidence that religious thinkers constitute no exception to 
the rule. 

Does it not, therefore, follow, that a correct conclusion is 
more likely to be reached by one who has no interest in either 
tearing down or building up any party or theory, — one who 
can not possibly gratify his ambition, his avarice, his vanity, 
or his lust, by unduly emphasizing or ignoring any fact or 
truth connected therewith, than by one constantly impelled to- 
ward party lines by both interest and tradition? 

If there be extant a work on the subject herein treated whose 
author was not bound *'as by bands of steel" to some denomi- 
national creed formulated by man's wisdom, the writer hereof 



has not been fortunate enough to secm-^ ,*^ ^j- ^~- '^-'^^^ "^"^ ^"^ 
of the writer to make* tKio nJcic worK such. How well he has 
succeedea must be left to the candid reader. 

The only special merit, therefore, claimed for this treatise is 
the absence of any motive for 'perverting the truth. It doubtless 
contains mistakes; perhaps errors. Should it prove free from 
either the writer will be greatly surprized. He cordially in- 
vites those who may detect them to call his attention thereto in 
a spirit of Christian brotherhood, and he will make a correc- 
tion both public and emphatic. 

It might appear superfluous to even suggest that it has not 
been intended to make this little work exhaustive. The subject 
herein treated could not possibly be more than fairly outlined 
in the space which has been herein appropriated. It has been 
our policy to suggest lines of thought which have been neglect- 
ed by religious teachers generally, yet which are calculated to 
enable the diligent student to reach important conclusions by 
more thorough investigation of the questions involved. It is, 
therefore, intended as suggestive, rather than exhaustive. 

Nothing was further from the intent of the writer than to send 
out a work capable of being comprehended by none save the 
scholarly; hence we regret that circumstances have appeared to 
require a recurrence to the Greek in a few instances. We have 
found it difficult, however, to get the basic principles underly- 
ing our suggestions clearly before the mind without classic elu- 
cidation where the translators either distorted or evaded their 
work. The points, however, which have been made to depend 
upon Greek exegesis are so well recognized by scholars gener- 
ally that they will not be seriously questioned; and, besides, we 
have endeavored to give such authority from approved lexicons 
that the earnest Bible student will have little difficulty in veri- 
fying our classical propositions even if ignorant of the lan- 
guage from which our common English version was taken. 

We earnestly recommend that the reader keep at hand a copy 
of the Scriptures, and that he turn to, and verify each passage 
herein quoted, as well as fully weigh and consider its bearing 
on the question treated. To have inserted all the Bible quota- 
tions in full would have required labor and space which can be 
otherwise utilized. 

We send this work out with the hope that it may prove one of 
the humble instruments in God's economy for the accomplish- 
ment of good. Yet if no such merit be earned or ascribed to it, 
and no more than a single edition be issued from the press, the 
writer has this conscience, that in sending it out he has dis- 
charged a personal obligation to the Master; and that in writ- 
ing it he has borne his witness, not out of season, to the peo- 
ple. If his witness be not believed, — ncr even heard, — the judg- 
ment will declare, as will likewise his book, that he has not 
written in craftiness, nor handled the word of God deceitfully; 
but has sought only by manifestation of the truth to commend 
it to every man's conscience in the sight of God. 

CRAV7F0RDSVILLE, Ind. THE AUTHOR. 



? 



WHAT CHURCH SHALL 1 JOINi 



There are at least three classes of persons who will 
probably not regard the above question as being of suf- 
ficient importance to require of them a careful consid- 
eration, viz: 

1. Those who do not deem denominational differences 
to be important. 

2. Those who do not appreciate the value of any 
truth which does not come through their own approved 
denominational channels. 

3. Those not sufficiently interested to devote the 
time and energy requisite for such an investigation as 
will form the basis for a satisfactory conclusion. 

To such we do not recommend this humble contri- 
bution to the current religious literature of the times 
with confident expectation of their deriving substantial 
benefit therefrom. 

To such, however, as seriously contemplate joining 
some church, with a view to placing themselves in har- 
mony with God's revealed will, and the development 
of such character as will be approved by him in the day 
of final reckoning, I humbly ask a careful consideration 
of the suggestions herein contained with as complete 
freedom from denominational traditions and sectarian 
partisanship as is reasonably attainable. 

cit may not be deemed inappropriate at this point to 
emphasize the importance of having a definite purpose 
in joining a church. That people are influenced in their 



— 2— 

denominational affiliations by considerations of ambi- 
tion, pride, social position, local convenience, commer- 
cial and political interest, public sentiment, and even 
rivalry, as well as religious conviction, will probably 
not be denied. The writer hereof has seen and heard 
all these motives appealed to by religious teachers and 
leaders of conceded reputation and ability. The claim 
that men should not be actuated by motives of this kind 
is wanting in neither force nor truth, but if we make 
our appeal to such motives, we are estopped from con- 
demning those who yield to them. Whether our mo- 
tive be high or low, both the act induced by it and the 
manner of its performance should be such as are cal- 
culated to attain the object sought. 

Men are not always clearly conscious of the motives 
by which they are actuated; hence, in joining a church 
we may be benefitted by subjecting to a critical analysis 
our motives, as well as the object sought to be attained. 
We can not deceive God. It will do no good to deceive 
ourselves. If we contemplate deriving benefit from 
any deception practiced on our friends and the relig- 
ious world, let us go about it advisedly, and hence, in- 
telligently. If our object in joining a church be to 
minister to our pride and love of pleasure, and we are 
willing and able to incur the requisite expense, we 
should choose one with an expensive meeting-house, 
finished and furnished in the most elaborate style, the 
members of which are inclined by culture, temper and 
circumstances, to a liberal indulgence and luxurious 
display of their sumptuary tastes. If indulgence in 
literary and scientific company and pursuits be your 
aim, join a church situated in a classical locality, having 
a studious and scholarly membership, and a pastor 
with unusual literary and elocutionary power. If you 
are seeking a social atmosphere, join a church whose 



— 8— 

members meet on a plane congenial to your taste; or if 
financial advantage be your object, let it be one whose 
members are not only prosperous and generous in 
their expenditures, but also zealous in restricting their 
patronage to those who are of the ^'household of [their 
particular] faith. " Gal. 6 : 10. If political ambition be 
your motive, join a church having a considerable mem- 
bership who affiliate with ^^the opposite party," but 
with whom the denominational tie is stronger than the 
political. If constrained to unite with a church by an 
admixture of the foregoing motives, let it be one which 
seeks to impress as much truth on its members as 
does not seriously interfere with their ambition, lust, 
and cupidity. But if moved by a sincere desire for the 
association of those who are simply Bible Christians^ — 
that you may be stimulated and encouraged by their 
sympathy and companionship, — that by mutual in- 
struction and admonition, uncontaminated by human 
tradition, you may be mutually edified, — that progress 
may be made in the development of tha,t perfection of 
Christian character prescribed in the New Testament 
teaching, — if, I say, these be your motives, then, I en- 
treat you, cast your lot with some religious body the 
existence of which is shown to be in harmony with the 
wiUof God. 

At this stage of the investigation the following ques- 
tions appear to be decidedly pertinent, viz: 

1. How many churches did Christ authorize to be 
established under the New Testament or Christian 
Dispensation? 

2. Which of the modern denominations ranging them- 
selves under the name of Christian, may rightfully 
claim divine authority for existence and divine appro- 
val of procedure in the worshiping assemblies? 

Are not all true believers in the Bible interested in 



— 4— 

the foregoing questions? How many of us have deter- 
mined them? Perhaps there are some who never 
thought of the matter in this light. Some, perhaps, 
have not the opportunity, the means, or the facilities to 
make an investigation. Others, possibly, may lack the 
mental training requisite, and still others may find it 
exceedingly difficult, by reason of their peculiar envi- 
ronment and sectarian traditions hallowed by life-time 
attachment. Surely, the religious world is entitled to 
clear, definite, and accurate answers to these ques- 
tions if obtainable by reasonable research; yet how sel- 
dom do we hear them calmly and dispassionately dis- 
cussed. The writer of these pages is willing to devote 
a part of his time, his ordinary ability and his very lim- 
ited acquirements to assisting the diligent truth-seek- 
er in a correct solution of the above questions, and such 
shall be his endeavor in this little work. 

That a definite and conclusive answer to the first of 
the above questions may be readily deduced from the 
Bible itself, seems reasonably clear to the writer, pro- 
vided sufficient time and energy be expended in colla- 
ting the parts of the Scripture bearing thereon and 
drav7ing the logical inferences. 

As to the second question, we venture no prediction; 
we promise, however, to consider matters which will 
not fail to be of interest to the unbiased Bible student, 
with the suggestion that he who shall succeed in de- 
scribing the church which contains all the elements for 
which provision is made in the Scriptures and none 
others, will have indicated the organism, both the ex- 
istence and procedure of which, certainly has the ap- 
proval of heaven. 

The word Ghurdi is defined by Webster as, 

3. "A body of Christian believers observing the same 
rites and acknowledging the same authority." 



— 5— 

4. "A particular number of Christians, united under 
one form of ecclesiastical government, using the same 
rites and ceremonies. " 

The critical reader of the Bible will have observed 
that the word is not used therein in quite so hberal a 
sense. The apostles did not recognize as any part of 
the "church" those who professed a belief in Christ, 
but did not conform, at least substantiaUy, to doctrines', 
practice, ordinances and modes of procedure authorized 
by the precept or example of inspired men. Acts 8- 
14-23; Rom. 16: 17, 18; Gal. 1: 6-9; 5: 3, 4; 2 Tim. 3- 5- 2 
John 10. ' 

The Greek word which is translated "church" in the 
New Testament is ehklesia, defined by Bagster as "A 
popular assembly, the aggregate of the called out or 
selected." It is a noun, derived from its co-relative 
verb eTcUeoo {Gr.ek, out and Ueoo, I call), and means to 
summon, to call out, to select from, etc. 

It is evident, therefore, that if at different times and 
for different purposes, God should select, call out, or 
separate different aggregations of people, they would 
constitute different churches. It is certain that in this 
sense, at least, the Israelites constituted God's church 
(called out or selected) in the wilderness in the time of 
Moses; likewise Noah and his family at the time of the 
flood. A different people, selected or called out for a 
different purpose, at a different time, organized in a 
different manner, on different basic principles, charged 
with different duties, invested with different preroga- 
tives, bound by different ordinancesin the performance 
of different rites and ceremonies, proceeding by differ- 
ent methods to the accomplishment of a different end, 
could not be or constitute the same church, even though 
created by the same authority. 
It will not be our purpose to trace all the points 



— 6— 

which distinguish the Jewish from the Christian dis- 
pensation. Suffice it if enough is shown to make it 
clear that they are not identical. One was to be only 
afire-lasting, the other et;er-lasting. One was the ex- 
ponent of God's power and justice, the other of his love 
and mercy. The rewards and punishments of one 
were chiefly temporal, of the other eternal. Justifica- 
tion by the law of one was exceedingly difficult, by 
that of the other comparatively easy. One was entered 
by a physical, the other by a spiritual birth. The con- 
ditions and obligations of membership, the form of 
government, the rites and ceremonies, the sacrifices 
and ordinances, as well as the order of the priesthood 
of the two respectively, were and are all widely 
and essentially different. That the churches of the 
two dispensations were not identical is also indicated 
by the language of the Master, used near the close of 
his life (about A. D. 32),— *'0n this rock I will build [not 
have I built], my church," evidently indicating the 
prospective, rather than the then present existence of 
the institution of which he was to be the head. Matt. 
16:18. See also Heb. 7: 17-22; 8: 6-13; 9: 15-17; 
10: 9, 10. 

The Mosaic church was then nearing its end, and in 
a few years was a thing of the past, while from Acts 2: 
47 we learn that the church which Christ promised to 
build was in existence (about A. D. 33), and from Acts 
20: 28 we learn that it was still in being about A. D. 60. 

The word church is used in the New Testament about 
seventy times in the singular, and near half that num- 
ber in the plural [including the dual, which, in the 
Greek, means two and no more). It is never used by 
Christ in the plural (or dual) at all, nor by his apostles 
till congregations existed in different localities « The 
plural (or dual) was never used by any of the New Tes- 



—7— .• 

tament writers in designating the whole or any part of 
the aggregate membership of any single locality. 
Where the plural (or the dual) is used the context clear- 
ly indicates that congregations in different localities is 
meant. Hence, the distinction was on local — never de- 
nominational—lines. The singular number of the 
word was always used to designate^ either the church 
universal, — that is, the whole body of obedient believ- 
ers regardless of time or place,— or the entire mem- 
bership of a given locality. It was never used to de- 
note less than the whole number of Christians in a 
given locality; nor does it anywhere appear that there 
was more than one congregation in any one locality, al- 
though Rome, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, and Jerusa- 
lem were each more than sufficient both in territory 
and population to have sustained several congregations 
variant, slightly in taste and temper, and, hence, slight- 
ly divergent in doctrine and practice, together with all 
the appliances deemed so essential to success in mod- 
ern times. Luke informs us that the congregation at 
Jerusalem had three thousand accessions on the day 
when the gospel was first preached by virtue of the 
great commission (Acts 2: 41), and that within a short 
time the number of adult males (Gr. Androon, not an- 
thropoon) was about five thousand (Acts 4: 4), and that 
multitudes were being added to them. Acts 5: 14. 

Profane history informs us that in the cities of Rome, 
Ephesus, Antioch and Corinth the number of believers 
extended into the thousands. Of them at Jerusalem 
many were possessed of property, and were wiUing 
that it should be devoted to the sustenance of the 
church. Acts 4: 32-37. Yet it does not appear that 
they divided themselves into separate bodies, promul- 
gating essentially, or even slightly different doctrines, 
erected commodious meeting-houses, and provided lib- 



— 8— 

erally for the salaries of brethren Paul, Barnabas, and 
others, as well as for the entertainment of such of the 
brethren and sisters as were not sufficiently in earnest 
to cling to the church and attend continually on her de- 
votions without a generous admixture of provision for 
the gratification of the flesh. Why these things were 
not done, or if done, why they have not been ' 'written 
for our instruction, " I leave to the determination of 
such as are possessed of natural abilities and powers 
of discrimination superior to mine. Of one thing, how- 
ever, we may be certain. If the early church was di- 
vided other than geographically; if there were numer- 
ous congregations in the same locality, differing from 
one another in doctrine, discipline, ordinances and 
structure; observing different ceremonies, promulga- 
ting different creeds, pursuing different methods and 
appealing to different motives, God has not seen fit to 
reveal it to us in his word. From this entire absence 
of affirmative evidence we might logically infer the 
non-existence of more than one church in the times or 
by the authority of Christ and his apostles. The New 
Testament, however contains much of an affirmative 
character which forbids the inference that Christ sanc- 
tioned a plurality of churches. Divisions were posi- 
tively forbidden by the apostle of the Gentiles. Rom. 
16: 17; 1 Cor. 1: 10. And Christ, himself, in the unut- 
terable agony of that last night he spent on earth, 
prayed earnestly that his disciples and all who should 
believe on him through their word might be one, even 
as he and the Father were one; adding that their suc- 
cess in promulgating the gospel depended on such 
unity. John 17: 11-21. 

Here, then, we find one church, certainly existing by 
and acting in harmony with the will of God. When, 
where and how did he ever authorize the establishment 



— 9— 

of any other? When, where and how did he ever ap- 
prove of the one church being rent into sections, sub- 
divisions or denominations, wearing different names, 
formulating different creeds, promulgating different 
doctrines, proceeding by different methods, or enforc- 
ing variant articles of discipline? Prom the foregoing 
considerations the following propositions seem to be 
clearly deducible, viz: 

1. God has authorized the establishment of but one 
universal church. 

2. He has made no provision for sects, branches or 
denominations therein. 

3. Nor for any rival institution, however similar 
thereto; 

4. Nor consented that I assist in sustaining any 
other. 

If these propositions be true, it becomes exceeding- 
ly important that some means be found by which the 
true church of God may be certainly identified, even 
by those lacking in scholarship; lest they expend their 
energy and exert their influence in promoting that 
which will eventually prove to be in opposition thereto. 
Matt. 7: 24; 24: 23-26. For this purpose it might be 
well to consider briefly some of the elements, attri- 
butes, and characteristics of the church of apostolic 
times. 

CHAPTER II. 

I. ORIGIN. 

Perhaps it will not be necessary to present a formid- 
able array of scripture texts in support of the proposi- 
tion that Christ is the author of the church established 
by the apostles. In Matt. 16: 18 we find the language 
of the Master himself, '*/ will build my church," (oiko- 
domeso mou ten eJcJclesian) not I have built, etc. In Heb. 
12: 2 the apostle speaks of Jesus as '*the author and 
finisher of our faith. " Likewise, in his various letters 



—10— 

to the brethren, and Peter in both his general epistles, 
call themselves apostles (messengers) and servants of 
Christ; hence, he is the author of their messages and 
the teaching used in the establishment of the congre- 
gations resultant therefrom. Eph. 1: 20-22; 5: 23, 24; 
Col. 1:17, 18; Heb. 1:2,3,8. 

II. NAME. 

The early church was called by several names, among 
which are TJie GIiurGh, Acts 2: 47; The Church of God^ 
Gal.l: 13; The ChuTGhes of Christ, Rom. 16: 16; The 
Church of the Firstborn, Heb. 12: 23; The Body of Christ, 
1 Cor. 12: 27. Why all these different names were used 
to designate the one Church, I will not undertake to 
decide; nor yet why some earthly parents give their 
children only one pre-nomen or Christian name, while 
others are more liberal in their bestowal of nomencla- 
ture. Nor do we believe any conjectures of ours on 
these questions will be profitable or interesting. It is 
not dif&cult, however, for the diligent Bible student to 
see that while these names differ in form, they are very 
closely allied in meaning. Names were then supposed 
to indicate some attribute, quality, or characteristic 
pertaining to the person or thing to which they were 
applied. When the term '*^/ie OA'i^rcA" was used, the 
idea intended to be conveyed was not any church, in- 
definitely, as the definite article is used to denote some 
particular thing or things. The context clearly shows 
what church was meant, viz:. either the entire church 
universal, or the whole number of believers in a given 
locality adhering to the faith, promulgating the doc- 
trine, administering the discipline, preserving the 
structure and conforming to the authority prescribed 
by Christ and his apostles. There was no exception to 
the rule that in so far as either an individual or an as- 
sembly diverged from these principles and procedure 



—11— 

they were regarded as on the road to apostasy. 2 Thes. 
3: 6; Rev. 2: 1-5. 

The Body of Christ is clearly a figurative way of ex- 
pressing the same as Church of Christy impressing at 
the same time the close relationship which the mem- 
bers should bear to the church and to one another. 
Rom. 12: 4; Eph. 4: 16; 1 Cor. 6: 15-19. The phrase, 
Church of God, is not far different from Church of 
Christ if we consider the language of Christ as record- 
ed in John 10: 30, *^I and my Father are one. " Nor is 
the expression, Church oj the Firstborn materially vari- 
ant from the others when we consider that Christ is 
the Firstborn or Firstbegotten of God. The same 
word(Gr. 39ro^o^ofcor6)is rendered firstborn^ Rom. 8: 
29 and Heb. 12: 23, and firstbegotten in Heb. 1: 6. In- 
spired men called the church by names which, though 
different in form, indicated the same attributes, and 
literally or figuratively conveyed the same idea. Does 
that fact justify us in the use of names indicative of 
doctrines diametrically opposed, or of attributes in ir- 
reconcilable conflict? Because some American of Rev- 
olutionary days, in the exhuberance of his patriotic de- 
votion called his son George Washington Lafayette Put- 
nam Kosciusko, would his neighbors have been there- 
by justified in addressing him as Benedict Arnold? or 
even Burgoyne or Cornwallis? Surely not. 

m. BASIC OR FOUNDATION PRINCIPLE. 

The scriptures which teach that the divine character 
and mission of the Christ constitute the basic or funda- 
mental principle on which rests the whole church fab- 
ric under the Christian dispensation are both clear and 
numerous. Christ himself so declares in Matt. 16: 14- 
18, where we find that Peter had just declared the di- 
vine character, and Christ affirmed that on that fact or 
declaration his church would be built. John declares 



—12— 

the object in writing the history of which he is the au- 
thor to have been the establishment of the same fact. 
John 20: 31. The burden of the issue made by the 
apostles in their preaching after the death of Christ 
was the proof of his resurrection. This being estab- 
lished, his divinity followed as a logical conclusion. 
Acts 3: 14, 15; 4: 10-12; 1 Cor. 15: 1-4, and many other 
scriptures which we forbear to cite at present as we 
shall recur to this question when we come to deal with 
the subject ot faith. 

rV. ORGANIC STRUCTURE. 

It will be well to bear in mind, as has already been 
shown, that the word church is used in the New Testa- 
ment to convey the idea of the Church Universal, as 
well as a local assembly. Matt. 16: 18; Acts 8: 1. Such 
is not an unusual way of speaking of that which may 
be indefinitely divided without any change of its prop- 
erties. When we say that the atmosphere is composed 
of oxygen and nitrogen in the proportions of 20.01 to 
79.99 we mean every particle of pure air which has ever 
existed. When we say ''the air is cold," we mean that 
which is in our immediate locality. If we speak of the 
air as being foul or damp, we do not mean all the air, 
or the air in general, but that portion occupying the 
particular locality in question, whether small or large. 
Such remarks as these last are never regarded as call- 
ing in question the constituent elements of our com- 
mon atmosphere. When divested of all foreign ele- 
ments, its component matter is the same in every lo- 
cality. It is just so with the church. The church at 
Ephesus was composed of all the obedient believers in 
that locality, and so with the church at Jerusalem . The 
Church Universal was and is composed of all the obe- 
dient believers everywhere. 

If they differ in faith, doctrine, ordinances, disci- 



—13— 
pline or methods of proceaure, it is because of a di- 
vergence from the standard authorized. When Paul 
spoke of ''the church at Corinth" he undoubtedly- 
meant all the members of the Church Universal who 
resided at Corinth. If by the '^Church at Rome" he 
meant less than all of the believers who dwelt there, 
such meaning does not appear. At the first ''the 
Church" consisted of a single congregation, which was 
located at Jerusalem; but this did not continue, and it 
was not long till congregations were estabUshed at oth- 
er places. 

Yet God provided no cohesive appliances for the 
purpose of combining them all into one consolidated ec- 
clesiasticism. Hence the only bond of cohesion by 
which their essential oneness was to be maintained 
was their unity of faith and its resultant uniformity of 
doctrine, discipline, ordinances and practice. In the 
Common or King James version of the New Testament 
we find a number of official names, among which are 
apostle, bishop, deacon, elder, evangelist, minist3r,pas- 
tor, preacher, presbyter, prophet, servant, shepherd, 
teacher, etc. It does not follow, however, that there 
were as many different functionaries in the primitive 
congregations, having as many different duties to per- 
form, nor does it appear to warrant the co-ordinating 
of the numerous congregations into an ecclesiastical 
union, nor st^d-ordinating them to an ecclesiastical 
hierarchy, with its various tribunals original and appel- 
late, from the stewards of a single congregation to the 
Pope or Ecumenical Council. 

In ancient times names were applied to people or 
things as indicative of, or to render emphatic real or 
supposed attributes or qualities. Hence, the followers 
of Christ were first called converts^ as indicating their 
recent change from Judaism or Paganism to Chris- 



—14— 

tianity. They were caiiea cj^^o^j^s^o (crr 
manthano, to learn), with reference to their diligence 
in learning from Christ or his apostles; believers, with 
reference to their convictions; brethren, as indicating 
the close and affectionate relationship which their at- 
tachment to a common Master rendered appropriate, 
and saints, in view of that degree of holiness to which 
it was their privilege and duty to endeavor to attd,in. 
There appears to be no ground for the inference that a 
saint was not also a convert, a believer, and, likewise, a 
brother. 

So also with the official ternis. They do not each 
imply a different functionary, nor, necessarily, a dif- 
ferent function. The twelve were first called disciples 
(Gr. mathetes). Matt. 10: 1. It is probable that at 
that time they were peculiarly the learners, possibly 
the only ones seriously devoting their time and ener- 
gies to the study of the new theology. Luke, in his 
account of this same matter (Luke 6: 18), informs us 
that they were also *^named apostles." Luke states 
the fact, and Matthew gives the reason why they were 
called apostles, viz: they were **sent forth." Luke 
says they were named apostles (Gr. apostolos, from 
apo, out or from, and stello, I send), and Matthew tells 
how they became apostles, i. e., by being sent. Matt. 
10: 5. We see that the twelve were both apostles and 
disciples, messengers and learners, according to the 
special function peculiar to the occasion. They were 
much more, as we shall see. Peter and Paul were both 
elders, (Gr. presbuteros, senior, older, adjective, comp., 
deg.). '- 1 Peter 5:1; Philemon 9. All the apostles, to- 
gether with Stephen, Barnabas, Philip and many oth- 
ers were evangelists (Gr. evangelidzo, to publish or pro- 
claim good news). The elders were overseers (Gr. ep: 
isJcopos, from epi, over or upon, and sJcopeoo, to look or 



—15— 

see) Acts 20: 17-28. This word is translated overseer 
in Acts 20: 28, and Ushop in Titus 1: 7 and 1 Peter 2: 
25. The masculine present participle of the same verb 
is rendered oversight in 1 Peter 5: 2, while episTcopen 
(ac. sing.) in Acts 1: 20, and episJcopes (gen. sing.) in 1 
Tim. 3: 1 are rendered Mshopricky and office of a Mshop, 
respectively. In Rom. 2: 20 the word didasJcalos (from 
the Gr. didasko, to teach, to instruct), is rendered 
teacher; in 2 Tim. 1: 11 it is rendered preachev^ and in 
Matt. 10: 25, Mark 5: 85, it is rendered Master. DiaTco- 
nos, the Greek word for servant^ is so translated in 
Matt. 22: 13 and John 2: 5, 9; and Rom. 16: 1, but in 
Rom. 13: 4, 6, and 1 Cor. 3: 5 it is rendered minister, 
while in 1 Tim. 3: 8, and Phil. 1: 1 it is rendered deacon. 
In this latter verse, the phrase {episTcopois Jcai diaJco- 
nois) rendered * ^bishops and deacons" in the King 
James version, the Arthur Hinds literal translation 
gives "overseers and those who serve." So we see 
how by giving to a single word a number of different 
renderings, the translators have made the text appear 
to give sanction to a multiplicity of church officials nev- 
er contemplated by the writers of the New Testament. 
When we come to consider who were preachers or 
evangelists, we learn from Acts 8: 4 that "they who 
were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the 
word. " Who went everywhere? They who were scat- 
tered abroad. Who were "scattered abroad"? They 
of the church at Jerusalem "were all scattered abroad 
except the apostles. " Acts 8:1. So we see that in 
the primitive church the believers were all disciples, 
brethren (or sisters), servants, evangelists, teachers, 
and preachers. John 13: 14-16. Paul was an apostle 
(Col. 1: 1), a worker of miracles (Acts 20: 9-17), an elder 
(Phil. 9), an overseer, having the oversight of the 
churches (2 Cor. 11: 28), a pastor (Acts 20: 11-22), an 



—16— 

evangelist (Acts 17: 22-33), a deacon (Acts 11: 29, 30; 2 
Cor. 11: 28), servant of Christ (Rom. 1: 1), and of the 
church (2 Cor. 4: 5) and a speaker of divers tongues (I 
Cor. 14: 17). Peter was all these, and in addition had 
the keys of the kingdom (symbols of authority) commit- 
ted to him in a special manner; yet he was not infalli- 
ble, for he thrice denied his Master (Matt. 26: 69-75) 
and likewise, when he trusted his own wisdom instead 
of following God's word he was guilty of dissimulation, 
and carried away as judicious a man as Barnabas with 
his erroneous doctrine. Gal. 2: 11-14. Not having 
within himself the attribute of infallibility, it was not 
possible for him to transmit it to a successor. We 
might follow this line almost indefinitely, showing that 
the other apostles were measurably endowed with the 
same powers and charged with the same duties as Paul 
and Peter, but enough has been given to indicate how 
little authority is to be found in the New Testament for 
the multitude of ofllcial functionaries and their privi- 
leges and prerogatives with which the theological jar- 
gon of modern Babylon is replete. 

We have as parts of the ecclesiastical machinery of 
modern times, the steward, class leader, chorister, or- 
ganist, deacon, archdeacon, clerk, secretary, superin- 
tendent, teacher, minister, pastor, evangelist, elder, 
ruling elder, presiding elder, missionary, home and 
foreign, overseer, bishop, archbishop, licentiate, cu- 
rate, vicar, priest, reverend, diocesan, metropolitan, 
primate, cardinal, apostolic delegate. Pope, etc., etc. 
Just how many of these are claimed by their friends to 
have been authorized by the New Testament, I do not 
undertake to say. It is certain, however, that many of 
them were not even dreamed of by those who read the 
New Testament in the Greek only. Is it not probable 
that the emiment scholars selected by King James to 



—17— 

make what is known as the * ^common version" carried 
into the text some of those traditional shades of mean- 
ing which had gained a lodgment in their minds 
through the denominational influence of a lifetime? It 
appears that they strained the meaning of the Greek 
text in order to make it cover the ecclesiastical orders 
then existing in the Church of England, of which they 
were zealous and devout members, and that all the sub- 
sequent subdivisions now constituting the Protestant 
sects have strained the King James version enough to 
justify the oflBcial distinctions and prerogatives of their 
respective denominations. 

tjet us briefly examine a few cases in which the 
Greek text was clearly wrested from its obvious and 
ordinary sense. In 1 Tim. 5: 1 we read: **Rebuke not 
an elder (Gr. presbutero) but entreat him as a father; 
and the younger men (neoterous) as brothers: likewise 
the elder women (presbuteras) as mothers, and the 
younger {neoteras) as sisters, "etc. The revised ver- 
sion and the Arthur Hinds popular literal translation 
give substantially the same. The Campbell and Mc- 
Knight (Presbyterian) gives *'Do not severely rebuke 
an aged man^ but beseech him as a father," etc. The 
Conybeare & Howson free version (Episcopalian), * ^Re- 
buke not an aged man, but exhort him as thou wouldst 
a father, " etc. Now, what is the difference in the 
word presbutero, translated an elder, and presbuteras, 
translated older women? Both these words are adjec- 
tives in the comparative degree. They are conceded 
by all to mean senior, older. The only difference is that 
one is the masculine singular and the other feminine 
plural, the noun to which the adjective belongs being 
understood in each case. Let those not acquainted 
with the Greek be reminded that in that language the 
adjectives have gender and number as well as the 



—18— 

nouns. The idea sought to be conveyed by the word 
elder was not that of an official personage. It is set, 
practically (though perhaps not gramatically) in appo- 
sition to pres&i^^era?, meaning the older women; not, 
however, as signifying the same thing, but a like thing 
so far as the analogy is concerned, and in respect to 
the duty enjoined. This view is confirmed by the anti- 
thetic as well as the apposite bearing of the sentence 
and the words used. Presbutero^ an aged man, is set 
in antithesis to neoterous, the younger men; and pres- 
buteras, the older or more mature women, is set in an- 
tithesis to neoteras, the younger women. If, then, 
presbutero meant a male officer, presbuteras meant fe- 
male officers. Prom these considerations it clearly ap- 
pears that in this place, at least, the word elder meant 
a man of mature age, in years or experience, or both, 
— a senior — rather than an officer or one in authority. 
In 1 Peter 5: 5, ''Likewise ye younger {neoteroi) sub- 
mit yourselves to the elder, " (presbuterois). Here the 
same word in the plural is used, not in the sense of 
contrasting one office with another, nor with the lay or 
unofficial members, but the aged with the young and 
inexperienced. 

It is, however, rendered elder, (singular) without any 
indication that it is different in meaning from the other 
places in which it is made to convey the idea of an of- 
fice, as in the first verse of the same chapter. In Titus 
2: 2 presbutas, the noun corresponding to the adjective 
used in the passage above cited, is rendered aged men, 
in correspondence with presbutidas^venderedaged wom- 
en in the succeeding verse. Thus we see how these 
words, which have never been regarded as carrying 
the idea of official preferment in their vernacular, have 
been made to serve the purpose of sustaining a dis- 
tinction between the clergy and laity which is entirely 



—19— 

unknown in the sacred writings. Titus 2: 2 is almost 
the exact equivalent of 1 Tim. 5: 1 in its antithetic bear- 
ing, i.e., the aged men are set in opposition to the 
young men, and the old women are set in opposition to 
the young women. Here, however, the noun is ren- 
dered aged men. Why should a noun meaning an old 
man and an adjective in the positive degree meaning 
old be made to convey the idea of seniority, and the 
same adjective in the comparative degree carry the 
idea of an official personage or one in authority? Why 
should the feminine adjective not have that meaning as 
well as the masculine? Let those answer who can. 

Keeping in mind the foregoing considerations, turn 
to the 17th verse of this same chapter (1 Tim. 5), **Let 
the elders {presbuterois) that rule (proestotes) well be 
counted worthy of double honor, especially they who 
labor (kopioontes) in word and doctrine. " The revised 
version follows the K. J. except that ^'teaching "is sub- 
stituted for * ^doctrine." The Conybeare & Howson 
(Epis.) gives, ''Let the presbyters who perform their 
office well," etc., and the McKnighb & Doddridge 
(Pres.), **Let the seniors who preside well," etc. 

The word rendered rule (proestotes) in the above 
verse is the perfect participle, middle voice, of the 
verb prohistemi^ to undertake, to practice, to maintain 
with diligence and energy, to stand up ©r forward in 
support of, etc. It does not carry the idea of ruling in 
the sense of one in authority. In Titus 3: 8-14 it is 
rendered "maintain good works," and the context 
shows diligence and energy in their maintenance. In 
Rom. 16: 2 the noun form of the same word is render- 
ed ' succorer," i. e., helper. To have translated it rul- 
er in this case would have made Sister Phebe the 
master or ruler over Paul and many others. The word 
translated labor in the verse under consideration is 



—20— 

the present participle of the verb Jcopaioo, to be weary, 
to be faint from intense and prolonged efi'ort, etc., 
(Bagster). It is so rendered in John 4: 6, where Jesus 
is represented as "being wearied from the journey" 
(JceJcopiaJcos eJc tes hoidopodias). In other places where 
this word is rendered labor the context shows it to 
have been such as tends to faintness or exhaustion. 
Bagster defines the noun formed from this same root 
to mean ''one who stands in front, a leader, a protect- 
or, a champion, " etc. The evident meaning of the 
sentence in question is **Bestow abundant honor on 
the brethren who notwithstanding their advanced age, 
stand well forward in maintenance of the cause; more 
especially them who have pursued their duty, of in- 
struction and exhortation to the point of exhaustion. " 
By translating the word indicating maturity as 
denoting official character, and the word indica- 
ting energetic perseverance as rule^ and then 
construing ^ ^double honor^^ to mean salary and 
^^word and doctrine^ ^ as the equivalent of elocutionary 
homiletics, we have an injunction well suited to the 
taste and conception of many of the religious leaders 
of the present time, viz: * 'Let the official clergy (even 
though lacking in age and experience) be counted wor- 
thy of a liberal salary who succeed in building up our 
party; more especially they who entertain the spirit- 
ually weak with elegant discourse. ' ' There are many 
more scriptures which have suffered like distortion un- 
der the cunning hand of the scholarly translators, but 
time and space forbid their being considered at length 
in so small a volume as this is intended to be. Enough 
has been quoted and commented on to indicate how 
persistently the translators and interpreters of the 
New Testament have labored to sustain the unscript- 
ural claim of modern religionists for the multitude of 



—21— 

ecclesiastical orders and clerical distinctions. The 
apostles are all dead. In the sense of being able to 
foretell events and of being in direct communication 
with God, there are probably no prophets now living. 
It has been shown that the elders (Gr. presbuteros)were 
the elderly or senior persons; that when charged with 
the function of overlooking the congregations they 
were called overseers (episJcopoi) which is the same as 
bishop, and that figuratively they were also called pas- 
tors, which is the Latin for shepherds. Thus, bishop, 
presbyter, pastor and overseer are the same. They 
were chosen from among the elders or elderly breth- 
ren on account of their experience, knowledge and fix- 
edness of character. It is obvious that there is no 
more sense in calling an overseer literally a pastor than 
there is in calling a congregation literally a flock of 
sheep. As has been shown, all the brethren were dis- 
ciples (learners), preachers, evangelists (proclaimers of 
good news), teachers (doctors), and ministers (ser- 
vants). Those who served the congregations in a spec- 
ial sense were called deacons by way of emphasis, but 
not as indicating exclusive service. Acts 6: 1-7. 

Hence the Organic Structure of the scriptural con- 
gregation is: 

1. Christ, the Head, with absolute and infinite au- 
thority. 

2. Overseers. Brethren who by reason of mature 
age, experience, discretion, integrity, intensity of 
courage and conviction, and proficiency in scripture 
knowledge, are recognized as safe and competent lead- 
ers and instructors, both in precept and example. 

8. Deacons. Those peculiarly qualified and set apart 
by the congregation for some special service pertaining 
to the welfare of the assembly or its members in their 
temporal aspect. 



—22— 

4. Bretnren. Those charged with no special func- 
tion or prerogative separate from the membership in 
general. 

Let it be remembered that these last are not excused 
from the performance of any duty of which they are 
capable, that may be assigned to them by the assem- 
bly, or that may otherwise devolve upon them. A man 
is called a merchant or a farmer according as he makes 
a specialty of the one or the other; not because he fol- 
lows it exclusively. A soldier is coiled b> private because 
he usually serves in that capacity. Should he be capa- 
ble of services of a higher order, and should they be 
required of him by a superior officer it would certainly 
be his duty to perform them cheerfully and to the best 
of his ability. So with the unofficial member. It was 
so in apostolic times. 

CHAPTER III. 

V. THE POWER OR AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH. 

All authority is either infinite or limited. The au- 
thority of the Church is limited in character and ex- 
tent; that is, only authority of certain character has 
been committed to the church, and even this has not 
been extended to all times, places and objects. It has 
been already shown that under the present or New 
Testament dispensation, all authority was committed 
to Christ. It logically follows that the assembly of his 
people have only such power or authority as he has 
delegated to them. As to the scope of her authority, 
we have been unable to find any grant of secular au- 
thority to the Church or any number of her members. 
Though the Master had the undoubted right to have 
assumed temporal power, he steadfastly refused to do 
so. John 6: 15; 18: 36. The charge committed to the 
church by her Lord and King is a moral and spiritual 
one, and her energies should not be dissipated and 
wasted on considerations purely and exclusively secu- 



-23- 

lar. The church and aU her functionaries, as such, 
would do well to preserve a respectful and dignified si- 
lence concerning the particular business in which a 
man may engage, what he shall eat, drink and wear, 
how he shall dispose of his surplus earnings and dis- 
pense his bounty, and what shall be the character of 
his diversions and recreations, so long as they involve 
no neglect of duty, wrong to a fellow man, or degrad- 
ing indulgence. The Master has nowhere in the sa- 
cred writings delegated to the church or any number 
of her members the right to require of me that which 
he has not required nor to deny me that which he has 
not denied. A wisdom sufficiently profound to deter- 
mine a course of conduct to be adhered to by each in- 
dividual, and suited to all the conceivable exigencies of 
life, is probably possessed by no man or number of 
men. God has not seen fit to prescribe such a course, 
nor has he authorized his church to do so. Not only is 
it true that the church has no secular authority confer- 
red upon her, but it is also true that her power in spir- 
itual matters is limited. Nowhere do we find legisla- 
tive authority conferred on her, nor the right to make 
change or modify the law of her being or procedure. 
It is true that Christ said to the apostles, "Whatsoever 
you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and 
whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in 
heaven. Matt. 16: 19; 18: 18. This was spoken to the 
apostles personally; certainly not of or to the church, 
for the church was not yet in existence. Matt. 16: 18. 
We concede that whatsoever the apostles have loosed or 
bound, either by their words under inspiration or by 
their example under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is 
approved in heaven. But if this language is to be ap- 
plied to the church in post-apostolic times, and receive 
a literal construction, and all the modern orthodox de- 



—24— 

nominations are parts of the church, it would follow 
that all their conflicting and mutually contradictory 
creeds, confessions, edicts, anathemas, and canoniza- 
tions must be true because promulgated by the church. 
This would pass every persecutor, infidel, murderer, 
and debauchee into heaven on a plane of equality with 
the most devout martyr of the dark and cruel Inquisi- 
tion, provided some corrupt or misguided priest could 
be induced to utter over his remains a flattering abso- 
lution. Moreover, if Christ invested the church with 
absolute authority, including power to legislate, then 
every vestige of excuse for the existence of Protes- 
tantism is at once swept away. If the true Church, 
being vested with plenary authority during the first 
sixteen centuries of the Christian era gradually evolved 
through the legitimate powers committed to her, what 
was at the time of the reformation The Universal Churchy 
Luther and his co-adjutors had no right to oppose her. 
No reformation was necessary. So we see that Prot- 
estantism is driven to deny either her own right to 
exist or the absolute and unlimited authority of the 
church, even in spiritual matters. 

By reference to the 25th, 26th and 27th chapters of 
Exodus it will be seen that God gave Moses specific di- 
rections for the construction of the tabernacle and for 
each and every piece of furniture to be placed therein. 
Moses seems to have construed the command, **See 
that thou make all things according to the pattern 
shown thee in the mount, " as meaning that a full and 
minute compliance with every detail of the order ex- 
hausted his authority in the premises; and God seems 
to have acquiesced in that construction. Looking back 
through the intervening centuries, who will say that 
Moses would have been justifiable in adding a single 
article or feature to the prescribed complement of fix- 



—25— 

tures and arrangements because it seemed juaicious or 
appropriate to him or to the wisest or most devout of 
the worthies of his day? 

The tabernacle "pitched by Moses" in the wilderness 
was a type of the church to be thereafter established 
by Christ under the New Covenant. Heb. 8: 5; 9: 1-11; 
10: 1. The "house of Christy " over which he is Master 
consists not of temples made with hands, furniture 
burnished with gold, nor altars crimson with the blood 
of animal sacrifices. Wherein, then, consists the anal- 
ogy which the type bears to the antitype in the author- 
ity and manner of construction, if it be not that such 
authority is exhausted in supplying each and every 
item designated in the command? To say that Moses 
designed and located the tabernacle and each article 
therein contained, scrupulously according to divine di- 
rections, reverently abstaining from making any con- 
tribution from human wisdom thereto, either in form 
or arrangement; and then to infer therefrom that we 
are authorized to alter, change, vary, or modify the ele- 
ments contained in the pattern furnished us by God 
for the construction of the spiritual building and the 
selection and arrangement of its furniture, is to ignore 
the essential elements of analogical apposition. 

We are not left, however, to the inferences of typical 
analogy for this important conclusion. Moses, in one 
of the most direct and pertinent prophecies concern- 
ing the advent and character of the New Testament 
dispensation, says: "But the prophet who shall pre- 
sume to speak a word in my name which I have not 
commanded, . . . shall die." Deut. 18: 20. Christ 
enjoined on the apostles the "teaching them [believers] 
to observe all things which I have commanded. " Paul 
said that this had been done, 1. e., that the "whole 
counsel of God" had been declared unto them. Matt. 



—26— 

28: 20; Acts 20: 27. And that in giving the Scriptures 
it was God's purpose to thoroughly furnish the man of 
God to every good work. 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17. Peter in- 
forms us that in this God did not fail of his purpose, 
but that in his revelation he had given us "all things 
which pertain to life and godliness." If all things 
commanded by Christ were to be taught believers — and 
he said that they were — if his whole counsel has been 
declared — and Paul says that it has— if the Scriptures 
were designed to thoroughly furnish us to every good 
work — and Paul says they were — if we have been fur- 
nished with ''all things which pertain to life and godli- 
ness" — and Peter says we have— ^if God has forbidden 
us to * 'speak a word in his name [by his authority] 
which he has not commanded" — and Moses said he did 
— does it not follow with all the certainty of a logical 
conclusion that the authority of the church is limited 
to the doing of such things as God has enjoined? 

But there is another scripture which fixes the limit 
of the authority of the individual (and hence, the 
church) so clearly and definitely that were it possible 
to destroy every other word bearing on the question, 
the limitation would remain sufficiently apparent to 
sustain the position herein asserted. "Whosoever 
transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine [teach- 
ing] of Christ hath [Gr. ekei holds] not God: whosoever 
abideth in the doctrine of Christ hath [holds] both the 
Father and the Son. If there come any unto you and 
bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your 
house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth 
him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. " 2 John 
9, 10, 11. The word transgress means to go or proceed 
beyond; it is from the Latin preposition trans^ beyond, 
and gressuSy the participle of gredior the verb, meaning 
to go, to proceed, to move forward, etc. To abide in a 



—27- 

house or town is not to go beyond its limits or bounda- 
ries. To abide in tbe doctrine of Christ is to keep 
within the scope of his teachings: to transgress his 
doctrine is to proceed or go beyond, or outside of that 
which he has enjoined. If each individual member 
abides within the limit of what Christ has enjoined, 
and none go beyond or outside of it, so must the church 
remain within that limit, since the church is but the ag- 
gregate of its individual members, and hence can pro- 
mulgate no doctrine nor set any example except 
through them. But this is not all. The importance of 
unity in the body is so emphatic that no place was left 
to construe away the evident bearing of this scripture. 
**If there come any unto you and bring not this doc- 
trine," etc. What doctrine? Evidently that contained 
in the preceding verse. How do we know? Because 
all of this short chapter which precedes the 9th verse 
consists of fraternal greeting, and sentences histori- 
cal, explanatory and admonitory in their character, 
rather than didactic or doctrinal. In fact, in this en- 
tire book, which consists of a single chapter of thirteen 
verses, the 9th, 10th and 11th verses contain all which 
can reasonably be classed as doctrinal. So we see, we 
cannot accord fellowship to, or affiliate in Christian 
communion with those who do not accept and adhere to 
the doctrine that works of supererogation are sinful. 
If we do we become partakers of their evil deeds, and 
thus forfeit our religious character. Let us illustrate 
this principle by a concrete case or two. Suppose an 
agent should dispose of the property of his principal in 
a manner or to an extent not justified by his instruc- 
tions, he transgresses, goes beyond^ and does not abide in 
(within) his authority. If a judge attempts to hold 
court outside of his jurisdiction, or if he condemns a 
man to be burned instead of hanged, or if he sends one 



—28— 

to the state's prison for a misdemeanor, he transgress- 
eSf and does not abide in the authority vested in him by 
the law. He would certainly be liable to punishment, 
not on account of doing that which the law /or&ade, but 
because he had done that which the law did not au- 
thorize. 

So, if a man, an assembly, or a society seek to intro- 
duce into, or commit the church to a doctrine, policy, 
method or line of conduct neither taught nor practiced 
by Christ or his apostles, it would constitute a trans- 
gression, a going beyond, and not abiding in the doctrine 
of Christ. It is also clearly indicated that he who does 
this *'hath (holds) not God, " but to the extent, at least, 
that he does not abide in, but goes beyond the teaching 
of Christ, he holds to, or depends on his own wisdom 
or the traditions of men for guidance in his religious 
conduct. How unreliable these are will appear from 
Matt. 15: 3-9; Mark 7: 7-13; 1 Cor. 1: 19, 20, 25, 27, 28, 
29; 2: 4, 5, 13, and 3: 18, 19. So we see that the au- 
thority of the church under the New Testament dis- 
pensation is limited both in its extent and character, to 
such things as her Supreme Head has enjoined by the 
precept or example of himself or his inspired apostles. 
Let us not be misunderstood on this point. It 
is the church itself, or the congregation as such and the 
individual members in their relation thereto which are 
so limited. We are not now dealing with individuals 
in their character as such concerning their secular 
matters. 

There are many things which it is the privilege — per- 
haps the duty — of a Christian to do in his individual ca- 
pacity, wholly unconnected with his attitude toward 
any ecclesiastical question, principle, or institution, 
but in which any co-operation or participation by the 
church as such would be not only inappropri- 



—29— 

ate, but ridiculous. In the vast equation of human life 
are many factors whose connection, if any, with the 
church in the aggregate or with spiritual matters at 
all, is exceedingly remote. Within this extensive do- 
main the limitations which God has seen fit to impose 
upon ecclesiastical authority do not apply. ''Love thy 
neighbor as thyself," and '^Whatsoever ye would that 
men should do to you, do ye even so to them, " proba- 
bly constitute the correct basis of the restriction which 
God has been pleased to impose on us concerning acts 
which are exclusively fellow- man ward in their bear- 
ing. Matt. 7: 12; Rom. 13: 9. For a wrong done our 
fellow the forgiveness of both him and God may be ob- 
tained by repentance, reformation and restitution. 
Matt. 18: 9; Rom. 14: 18. Even if reparation is never 
made, a personal injustice cannot affect the recipient 
beyond the period of this life; but the wrong done to 
the church by teaching her to exceed or fall short of 
the duties and prerogatives prescribed by her Lord 
and King may extend down to the "last syllable of re- 
corded time. " Who can estimate the effect on poster- 
ity? 

Notwithstanding no such authority has been com- 
mitted to the church nor any number of her members, 
in many instances those claiming to be the church 
assume the prerogative of denouncing all nerve 
palliatives in the way of facetious exchange of 
wit, illustrative anecdotes, humorous plays upon 
words, etc., and of determining for their breth- 
ren matters political, social, scientific, esthetic and 
sumptuary, the propriety of which depend on time, 
place, circumstances, habit, temperament, environ- 
ment, health, disposition, and perhaps other conditions 
of those directly concerned. These things and the 
opinions appurtinent thereto and the consequences re- 



—30— 

suitant therefrom are almost always more definitely i j 
within the knowledge and discretion of the individuals * 
directly concerned in each particular case than that of 
any board, tribunal or committee, since the latter must 
necessarily get the facts from second or third hand, 
and hence often ignore or mistake the motives and in- 
ducements of their brethren. Thus they transgress 
or exceed the authority which has been committed to 
the church in denying to the people privileges and en- 
joyments which God has not forbidden. Feeling that 
perhaps in this way the rights of the individual 
members have been infringed, an attempt is often 
made to compensate for the deprivation. In order, 
therefore, to balance the equation, they further trans- 
gress or exceed the authority with which the church 
has been invested by introducing into the worshiping 
assemblies attractions which belong exclusively to the 
world, and have no place in, or connection with spirit- 
ual matters, though perhaps all right in their place, 
even for Christians as purely secular diversions. In- 
stead of fully recognizing this distinction between 
things which pertain to our spiritual, and such as con- 
cern exclusively our temporal being, and keeping the 
authority for each where it naturally and scripturally be- 
longs, the difference has been practically ignored in 
many of the relations of life, if not entirely obliterated 
by popular traditions. How often do we hear a purely 
secular enterprise condemned for the sole reason that 
*'it is not approved by the example of Christ or his 
apostles, " as if the objector did not habitually do nu- 
merous things which Christ never did, nor his apostles 
ever even thought of. Yet these same people accept as 
conclusive the harmlessness of unscriptural things 
done by andinthe worshiping assemblies, because "They 
are nowhere forbidden in the Bible, " as if there were 



—31— 

not numbers of things well calculated to corrapt any- 
religious assembly which could not have been forbid- 
den by the apostles because they were entirely un- 
known in their day. 

This is a complete reversal of the process for determ- 
ining the propriety of things secular and spiritual, re- 
spectively. The absence of precept, example or ration- 
al inference in favor of a thing should be sufficient to 
exclude it from forming any part of the service of the 
assemblies when met for work and worship; while the 
absence of precept, example or rational inference 
against a thing should admit it into secular affairs 
under appropriate restrictions; at least, this should 
suffice to preclude us from forbidding its use by others 
on pain of non-fellowship. If this construction were 
universally placed on the sacred writings and sincerely 
applied, little room would be found for the multiplicity 
of sectarian divisions so prevalent in Christendom, and 
few things would be left to the field of contention even 
in the domain of secular affairs. A well nigh universal 
disregard of this wholesome principle of construction 
has contributed to the destruction of all logical dis- 
tinctions based on whether an act has a temporal or a 
spiritual bearing. As a result, the unlearned in Bible 
history and doctrine are left in absolute confusion, till 
denominational prejudice and tradition become so 
fortified in their minds as to exclude all truth not in 
harmony therewith. 

I shall probably never forget a colloquy between one 
of the overseers of a western congregation of disciples 
and one of the sisters, a devoutly sincere woman, in- 
tensely German in blood and brogue. She was com- 
plaining to the overseer that a young man, not a pro- 
fessed believer, had been chosen to conduct the music, 
and had entertained the congregation with an attractive 



—32— 

solo with instrumental accompaniment while the ele- 
ments representing the Lord's body and blood were 
being partaken of . The elder said, '^You have a like 
instrument in your residence, and your children play 
it. " ' 'Yes, " she answered. * * And you receive that young 
man into your home." ''Yes," responded the sister, 
"and I keep him in de right place ven he is dere. You 
have a cow in de barn but we don't bring him to de 
meeting-house. We haff some pigs in de fielt by de 
grave yart; but if we open de fence and let 'em into de 
place w'ere de graves are, and they root up de grass, 
und bite down de flowers, und soil the w'ite stone over 
de grave of your wife and little baby boy, you don't 
love me and my husbant any more." The old man's 
face fell forward into his hands; silence reigned for a 
few moments, and when he raised his head his eyes 
were red and his cheeks were wet with the mist of a 
tender and compassionate sorrow. He had seen the 
point. 

Sincere and consistent reader, is the ''little green 
mound" and the "marble shaft" more sacred than the 
memorial institution which the Master has requested 
us to observe "till he come?" Is the memory of loved 
ones gone before more precious than that of him who 
did more for the amelioration of human suffering, and 
at far greater cost than any human friend or kinsman 
has, will, or can? Would we in the presence of the 
bodies of our beloved dead, do that which would have a 
tendency to embitter their children toward each other? 
In paying a last tribute of respect and affection to their 
memory, would we make it an occasion for doing things 
which simply minister to our pleasure? Would we 
have those take the lead in protestations of devotion 
who knew little and cared less for them? Would we 
make the servicer so distasteful to some of their breth- 



—33- 

ren, and so offensive to their sense of propriety, and of 
their respect to the memory of the deceased as to pre- 
clude their being present? So we see that when things 
pertaining to the secular or temporal side of our being 
are brought into the worshiping assemblies, there 
must be some limit set to them; but who shall set the 
limit? What tribunal shall allow me the unauthorized 
thing which / desire to bring into the worshiping 
assemblies and deny you that which you desire? The 
Church of Christ has neither the time nor the energy to 
waste, nor the authority to justify her in assuming to 
adjudicate matters of this kind, which pertain to our 
temporal well being. Nor has she the requisite ma- 
chinery for the manipulation of the numerous schemes 
for amusement and entertainment with that degree of 
efficiency which will satisfy the popular demand. 

Since it clearly appears that the Kingdom or Govern- 
ment of Christ is neither a pure nor a representative 
democracy, and aristocracy nor an oligarchy, but an ab- 
solute monarchy, Christ himself being the sole Supreme 
Ruler, it will be well for the church to disclaim all 
legislative power, since it has nowhere been delegated 
to her; and likewise all executive and judicial power 
which pertains exclusively to secular affairs. The prin- 
ciple of individual liberty in temporal matters is set 
forth very clearly and forcibly in the Scriptures, es- 
pecially in the 14th of Romans and 8th of 1st Corinth- 
ians, and these chapters may be read entire with profit 
to such as are disposed to condemn all action except 
that which they deem appropriate. These scriptures 
plainly deny us the right either individually or collec- 
tively, to condemn or disfellowship a brother for an 
act or an attitude on the ground that it does not meet 
our approval or correspond with some construction we 
have seen fit to place on the Scriptures. The fact that 



—34— 

our intelligence orjudgmentissnperiortohis — andit us- 
ually is;— that our conclusions from given premises are 
logical, — and they generally are; — or that time vindi- 
cates our decision,— for it almost invariably does; — 
these do not give us the right to condemn him or refuse 
him our confidence if it is concerning a matter per- 
taining to temporal affairs, involving no moral principle, 
and he does not seek to bind his fellow man to a similar 
line of action. It is true that these chapters contain 
much advice and admonition to the critic and likewise 
to the victim thereof. That we are enjoined to forego 
many of our secular rights and privileges in order to 
satisfy the weak conscience of our uninfoTinied or mis- 
informed brother, is entirely clear. But it is to be 
voluntarily done. Neither the church nor any number 
of her members can assume to decide for me when, 
where, and under what circumstances I must relin- 
quish my temporal rights in order to promote the 
moral or spiritual welfare of my brother. This is a 
matter which each must determine for himself, in view 
of his responsibility to God. Let each one make the 
sacrifice accordingly. 

Along this line, therefore,let us not ^^judge one another 
any more;" for *^to his own Master he standeth or fall- 
eth; yea he shall be upheld" if he sipcerely seek to 
exercise a truly Christlike discrimination and forbear- 
ance, for "God is able to make him stand. " even though 
he fails to secure our approval. 

CHAPTER IV. 

CONVERSION, FAITH. 

More space has already been devoted to the negative 
side of this branch of our subject than was originally 
contemplated. The affirmative side shall now be con- 



—35— 

sidered. 

What, then. Is the extent and character of the author- 
ity delegated to the church by her Head, as shown in 
the Scriptures? What is her peculiar mission as there- 
in indicated? What are the ends toward the accom- 
plishment of which her energies are clearly authorized 
to be directed? 

The answers to these questions seem to be so univer- 
sally agreed on by religious scholars and teachers that 
we deem an extended consideration thereof unneces- 
sary. The prominent duties enjoined on the early 
church, and in the performance of which her chief 
energies were to be expended, were: 

1. The conversion of the sinner, or unbeliever, and 

2. The developmert toward ultimate perfection of 
the Christian character of the believer. Of these in 
their order. 

Much confusion has been wrought by the mystery 
with which it has been sought to invest what is com- 
monly called conversion; and, unfortunately, we rarely 
hear one attempt to divest it of this mystery on purely 
Bible grounds. 

Lack of precision or clearness on this point has given 
rise to many curious and abstruse questions concern- 
ing the process. What constitutes conversion^ when, 
how, and where, it is accomplished, whether the proc- 
ess is gradual or instantaneous, and whether the sub- 
jects are active or passive, are all questions which 
spring from a lack of clearness in considering the 
thing itself. Webster defines conversion to be *1. The 
act of turning or changing from one state or condition 
to another. " If, therefore a man turn or change from 
the disbelief of a proposition to the belief of it, he is 
converted, as to that proposition. If the new truth has 
been pressed upon him earnestly and successfully by 



—36— 

one of its advocates, he who did so may aptly be said 
to have done the converting^ or, at least, to have con- 
tributed thereto. But if the change has been due 
solely to his own efforts and investigations, he may as 
truthfully be said to have converted himself, or to have 
contributed largely thereto. If the investigation or in- 
struction has been step by step, extending over a long 
period of time, his conversion may be said to have been 
gradual; but if the fact or truth requisite to produce 
the change was discovered or thrust upon him sud- 
denly, his conversion might be said to have been in- 
stantaneous, or practically so. 

For illustration we will suppose the subject of con- 
version to be a disbeliever in the spherical form of the 
earth. He is in attendance on one of the scientific 
schools which has a competent corps of teachers, an 
extensive library containing the works of Galileo, 
Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, DesCartes and others, 
by the help of which he is eventually convinced that 
the earth is a spherical body. Who converted the man? 
Did not the old scientists contribute thereto by the dis- 
covery and elaboration of those truths into a compre- 
hensive system? Did not the founder of the school, by 
providing the means, contribute thereto? the teacher, 
by applying them? and the student, by devoting his 
energies to the study of them? The change or conver- 
sion of a bad boy into a good one may be effected by a 
judicious system of rewards and punishments under 
the supervision of discreet parents. In such case, the 
parents may truthfully be said to have converted him. 
By meditating on the direct and remote consequences 
of evil doing, he may have been constrained to forsake 
evil without the intervention of any other agency. If 
this be of his own volition, he certainly contributes 
materially to his own conversion. Why, then, this 



—37— 

quibbling about who converts a man^ more than about 
who makes a crop? Does God make the crop because 
he gives the soil, the sunshine and the rain? Does man 
make the crop because he selects suitable seeds, the 
proper time, brings the two into contact, and tills and 
fertilizes the soil? Which is the most indiscreet and 
unreasonable, the man who has so much confidence in 
his own ability to make a crop that he refuses to take 
advantage of purely providential matters and coin- 
cidences, or he who takes the other extreme of attrib- 
uting the entire work to God, a^nd therefore puts forth 
no effort at all? The sensible, as well as the successful 
manner of dealing with matters of this kind is to avail 
oneself of all the provisions which God has made for 
facilitating our work, supplementing them, at the same 
time, with our own energies where they are calculated 
to contribute to the end sought. Why not do the same 
in the matter of conversion? Why speculate about 
such matters, instead of reverently proceeding to per- 
form that part of the work which God has seen fit to 
assign to us? 

God undoubtedly converts men to the extent of hav- 
ing provided ample means, reveals them to us in his 
word and reveals himself to us in nature as possessing 
all those admirable and lovable attributes which should 
constrain us to cheerful and reverential obedience. 
John 3: 16. The Bible converts men to the extent that 
it is the sole source of infallible information to that 
end. John 17: 17; Heb. 4: 12. The preacher or in- 
structor, likewise, contributes, by appealing to the 
emotions and reasoning powers. 1 Cor. 1: 21; Rom. 10: 
15. We can contribute thereto by a careful and dili- 
gent search of the Holy Scriptures and a constant at- 
tendance on the things therein required. Matt. 7: 21; 
Acts 17: 11; Rom. 2: 7. Some confusio^ has doubtless 



—38— 

arisen from the fact that the scripture idea of conver- 
sion as found in the Greek New Testament has not 
been brought into the common or King James version 
of the Sacred Volume. For some reason which the 
writer can only conjecture, the word rendered be con- 
verted {epistrepsoosin^ 3rd person^ pin., fut., active, from 
epistrepho, to turn, to return, etc.), is not only trans- 
lated from the Greek into the English, but also from 
the active to the passive voice. In Acts 3: 19 the 2nd 
per., active, imperative {episirepsate\ of the same verb 
is likewise rendered passive (be converted), while in 
James 5: 19, 20 the same verb in the subjunctive {epis- 
trepse) and the active participle (epistrepsas) are ren- 
dered active. The striking features of these verses is 
that idosin, should see, aJcousoosin, should hear, and 
synosin, should understand, all contained therein are 
all rendered active though in the same mode, tense, 
and voice, and are in direct apposition to epis trepsosin^ 
rendered passive (pe converted). The same liberty was 
taken by the King James translators in Acts 3: 19. The 
verb, metanoesate (from metanoeo^ to repent) is ren- 
dered active, while epistrepsate^ though in the same 
modej tense, number, person, and voice, is rendered 
passive, though the two are in direct apposition, be- 
ing directed to the same subject. Now, there is as 
much difference in converting and being converted^turn- 
ing and being turned as there is in striking and being 
struck. Suppose a foreigner, unacqua,inted with oi^r 
language, testifies through an interpreter that the de- 
fendant in a criminal proceeding is the person who did 
the striking, shooting, or stabbing, as the case may be, 
but the interpreter renders the language to the jury 
that he was the person struck, stabbed or shot. Would 
we not regard him as a willful perverter of the truth? 
We are pleased to note that the translators of what is 



—39— 

called the Revised Version have to some extent avoided 
this mistake. In a translation made by George Camp- 
bell, James Macknight, and Philip Doddridge, three 
eminent Presbyterian clergymen in the first half of the 
18th ceDtury, Matt. 13: 15 and corresponding or paral- 
lel passages were rendered, ^^Lest they reform and I 
should reclaim them, "etc., and Acts 3: 19, **Reform, 
therefore, and return to God, " etc. We are unable to 
see any good reason for thus wresting these well 
known and well defioed words from their ordinary sig- 
nification unless it is, in what is called conversion^ to 
givegreater emphasis to that part of the work which 
God has seen fit to do, and less to that which he has 
seen fit to assign to man than is justified by the t^xt in 
its integrity. Would it not be well for us to leave these 
matters just where God has deemed it best to place 
them? If, in the economy of redemption God has been 
pleased to assign to man never so humble a part, would 
it not be well for us to recognize that fact and encour- 
age him to perform that part well, regardless of any 
degree of weakness or inefficiency which our wisdom 
may attribute to the best that man can do? 

It is no part of our purpose to discuss the 
relative merits of Calvinism and Arminianism. 
To even speculate on the ratio of importance which 
man's duty bears to God's provision for his salvation^ 
would be to tread on the bounds of the unknown, if not 
the unknowable. Such promises as God has designed 
to be rehed on, he has given us in his word with suffi- 
cient clearness for all practical purposes. Where con- 
ditions have been super-imposed they appear suffi- 
ciently definite and specific for our guidance. He has 
promised that reward shall foUow obedience. If the 
reward be dependent on obedience, let us obey in order 
to obtain the reward. If not dependent, but the reward 



—40— 

has been pre-determined regardless of obedience, let us 
obey as a matter of gratitude to One who has pre-ar- 
ranged such blessings for such unworthy creatures. 
At all events, let us obey. 

But what things are we required to do, and what com- 
mands are we to obey in order to become Christians? 
Would it not be well for us to turn to the word of God, and 
ascertain therefromif possible just what was done in the 
days of the apostles in order to convert a man from Pa- 
ganism, or Judaism, or any other ism to Christianity? 
The book called '^Acts of Apostles" is the only one 
of the entire New Testament in which a case of con- 
version under the gospel dispensation is to be found 
recorded. Is not that the place to go in order to find 
out how people were converted, or became Christians 
in the days of the early church? Will not the same 
means which made a disciple or convert then^ make one 
now'i If not, why not? We find by reference to the 
example of the apostles as shown in Acts, as well as 
precept contained in other parts of the New Testa- 
ment, that when one had honestly and sincerely com- 
plied with four requirements he was accepted as a dis- 
ciple, viz: 

^1. Believed. John 3: 15; Acts 8: 12-37; 16: 31; Rom. 
10:9. 

2. Repented. Luke 13: 3; Acts 2: 38; 3: 19; 17: 30; 
26: 20. 

3. Professed (or confessed). Matt. 10- 32; Rom. 10: 
9; 14: 11. 

4. Been baptized. Acts 2: 38; 8:12; 10:47; 22:16; 
Jno. 3: 3; Gal. 3:27. 

It is no part of our purpose to enter into an extend- 
ed discussion of the fine spun theories formulated by 
men, however great, wise, or good, concerning God's 
reasons for prescribing these four things as pre-requi- 



—41— 

site to acceptance, or any, all; or either of them. God 
has nowhere made acceptable obedience to depend on a 
correct understanding of his purposes or reasons for 
giving or requiring obedience to certain commands. 
Neither the Old or the New Testament records a single 
instance in which God withheld his approval from one 
who had done the thing, and in the manner command- 
ed, because of a misunderstanding of the purpose in 
giving the command. Numerous instances are to be 
found in both in which a mistake or departure from the 
right line, in either act, manner, or motive, has been 
fraught with disastrous consequences. 

We cite a few. Cain was condemned for substituting 
the fruits of the ground for a sacrifice from the flocks, 
which latter Gt)d had indicated would be acceptable. 
Human reason suggests that such an offering as Cain 
made would have been singularly appropriate, as he 
was ^'a tiller of the ground," rather than a tender of 
flocks. But it was a departure from God's directions, 
and any honesty of purpose he may have had availed 
him nothing. Gen. 3: 3-6; Heb. 11: 4. Moses was ex- 
cluded from the land of promise because of the manner 
in which he executed the command to ^'bring water out 
of the rock." 

Uzzah lost his life because of the wrong manner of 
conveying the ark of the covenant from place to place. 
Ex. 25: 12-15. 2 Sam. 6:3-7. The multitudes failed to 
receive a benefit from the personal ministry of Christ 
because they sought him from wrong motives. John 
6: 26. Ananias and Sapphira lost their lives rather 
than gained a blessing from their liberality, on account 
of the mingling of impure motives prompting them to 
make the gift. 

Hence, investigation of the character and effect of 
acts which God requires of us, should not be made for 



—42— 

the purpose of discovering God's reasons for them, so 
much as with a view to obtaining such information as 
will enable us to perform them with accuracy and com- 
pleteness. Keeping these considerations in view, let 
us give brief attention to the foregoing requirements. 

1. Beliefs or, as it is generally translated, faitJi^ is the 
foundation upon which all voluntary, intelligent action 
rests. No voluntary act is deliberately and consider- 
ately performed by a rational being except in the faith 
or belief, however feeble it may be, that it will con- 
tribute to the end sought to be attained. We regard it 
as unfortunate that the Greek word pistis^ (from pis- 
teuo, I believe) was rendered faith by the translators, 
rather than belief. 

It has served as a basis for a distinction sought to be 
raised between the two words by some professed 
Christians, when, in fact no such difference exists. In 
support} of the statement that there is no ground for 
such a distinction, we desire to call attention to the 
fact that the word &eZ^e/ occurs but a single time in the 
entire New Testament, unless we have overlooked its 
more frequent use. The idea of belief occurs with great 
frequency. Why, then does not the word appear more 
than a single time? There can be but one reason, viz: 
because some other word has been used to express the 
same idea, or has been substituted regardless of the 
fact of its difference in meaning. 

The word believe is used f req uently in the New Testa- 
ment. Can you find any other writing in which the 
verb or action form of a word is so frequently used, while 
the substantive or name form of the same word is not 
used at all or but once? Almost every action word 
(verb) has its corresponding name word (noun). We 
have strike, stroke; weigh, weight; cleave, cleft; drive, 
drift; give, gift; join, joint; strive, strife; believe, be- 



—43- 

lief ; etc., etc. Where can another book be found in 
which the verb is used with great frequency, but the 
noun not used at all? If you were to read a treatise on 
giving in which the word gift did not occur, you would, 
at least consider it as remarkable, and would doubtless 
account for the fact on the supposition that gift had 
been called by another name. This is just what the 
translators have done in regard to the word belief. They 
have simply substituted the word faith. As the verb 
pisteuo is rendered / believe by the lexicons not spec- 
ially prepared by theologians and for theological pur- 
poseSj so the noun, pistis is translated belief. With the 
Greek negative prefix, **a," it is uniformly rendered 
unbelief, -just as we render words with the English pre- 
fixes un or in. Morever, it is set in opposition to un- 
belief in almost every case, just as the word belief 
should be. In Rom. 3: 3 Paul asks, **Sha.ll their un- 
belief (apistea) make the faith (pisten) of God of none 
effect?" InHeb. 4:2, 3 the Israelites' lack of faith 
(pisten) is set in direct opposition to our believing 
(pisteusantes). Here their failure to secure a blessing 
is attributed to their lack of faith (pisten) while in chap. 
3: 19 it is attributed to their unbelief (apistian). In 
John 20: 27, faithless (apistos)is set in direct opposition 
to believing (pistos). Conybeare & Howsoa recognize 
the impropriety of thus setting in direct opposition 
things which do not stand opposed to one another, and 
render Heb. 4: 2, ''But the report which they heard 
was profitless because it met no belief in the hearers.'' 
It will be well to remember that the word but, when 
used as a conjunction, denotes direct and strong op- 
position. It follows that in order for the word faithless 
to be the antithesis of believing, it must mean unbeliev- 
ing. It faithless means unbelieving, faith means belief 
In Heb. 11: 6 it is said 'Without faith it is impossible tc 



—44— 
please God: for (because) he that cometh to him must 
believe^ " etc. How can the impossibility to please God 
without faith be because of our obligation to believe un- 
less faith Q,nd belief fire the same? 

Again, "without faith it is impossible to please God." 
But one can please God sufficiently to be saved and 
justified by believing. Acts 13: 89; and 16: 31. Hence 
/a^^ft and &eW6/are the same. When we consider how 
well this artificial distinction between faith and belief 
has been made to serve the purpose of throwing around 
the subject an air of mystery which none save the 
clerical class can dispel, the reasons for its creation 
may appear. 

We should be pleased to consider at some length 
what we will designate a twin theory with the above, 
consisting of a distinction sought to be drawn between 
*^saving" and "non-saving" faith, but time and space 
forbid. That a difference exists between effective and 
ineffective faith, we have no doubt; but it is in degree, 
rather than in kind. Effective faith is that which is 
based on a practicable proposition and is sufficiently 
strong to stimulate its possessor to use the legitimate 
means requisite to the accomplishment of the end 
sought. Ineffective faith is that which is based on a 
false or impractical basis, or is too weak to set in mo- 
tion the forces necessary for the consummation of the 
desired results. A saving faith, then, is a conviction 
that God will do all he has promised, and which is of 
sufficient strength to impel us to perform all the duties 
he has assigned to us. A non-saving faith is one not 
resting exclusively on divine testimony, or is lacking 
in the force necessary to induce us to conform our 
lives thereto. 



—45— 

CHAPTER V. 

Having shown faith to be one of the requisites to 
salvation, and tho^t faith and belief are the same, the 
next logical step or inquiry would seem to be: What is 
the extent of the faith required, or what are we requir- 
ed to believe? Fortunately for the earnest enquirer, 
the answer to this question is likewise to be found in 
the language of Holy Writ. The apostle John, in the 
history bearing his name, informs us that the things 
contained therein were written ^^thatyou might believe 
that Jesus is the Christ [anointed], the Son of God; 
and that believing ye might have life through his 
name. " Jno. 20: 31. Philip accepted and baptized the 
Ethiopian on the profession, "I believe that Jesus 
Christ is the Son of God. " These quotations show con- 
clusively that a belief or faith in the divine character 
and mission of Christ was sufficient at that time to con- 
stitute a basis for Christian character. It is possible, 
however, that a belief in the divinity of Christ involves 
more than appears to the casual observer. To believe 
in his divinity is to believe that he possesses the attri- 
butes of divinity; viz., wisdom, power, holiness, justice, 
goodness, truth and mercy, forever and unchangeable. 

Conceding to him the wisdom to know what is best 
for us and the goodness to do and require only that 
which is best, we will cheerfully comply with each and 
every requirement. Such is the inevitable logic of the 
proposition, and we fear it is the desire to escape this 
conclusion which has lead some to ascribe saving power 
to faith alone, or in the abstract. We regard this as a 
serious mistake. As much so as to attribute to the 
vitalizing influences of sun, light and moisture the 
power of producing large crops without seed and cul- 
ture. If there be in either the physical, moral, in- 



—46— 

tellectual, or spiritual domQ.in a process for developing 
character by means of a principle in the absence of 
action in accordance with that principle, li> has escaped 
our observation. Truth in the abstract is of llltlo 
value to societjj even where it is recognized. It is only 
in its influence upon forces that a principle is potent 
for good or evil; — only as it impels or limits the oper- 
ati'^n of forces along or within lines in harmony with 
itself. ''Faith" (belief) therefore, without works is 
dead." James 2: 14-23. What is a dead faith? James 
says it is one which does not manifest itself by works 
or action in harmony or correspondence therewith. 
The scriptures which appear to the casual observer to 
be in conflict with the above quotation, will, I have no 
doubt, be found on close scrutiny by the critical 
student, to be in entire harmony therewith. It will not 
be disputed by any metaphysician of repute that the 
object to be attained by right faith, belief or conviction 
is the determination of its possessor to right action. 
That such is the one direct and legitimate result of this 
proximate and efficient cause with rational and respon- 
sible beings in secular affairs, whether moral, physical, 
or intellectual, is a well established principle. Nought 
save lack of either courage or integrity should prevent 
our actions corresponding with our convictions. Hence, 
the scriptures, ''Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and 
thou shalt be saved, " (Acts 16: 81) and ••Whosoever be- 
lieveth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting 
life," etc., are metonymic in their bearing, and no more 
mean that a man is saved by believing, regardless of 
consequent reformation, than that one is killed by fall- 
ing from a lofty place, independent of the concussion 
received on striking the ground. 

But, it is urged, * 'Abraham believed God, and it was 
counted unto him for righteousness." Rom. 4; 3. Yes, 



-47- 

iind Abraham obeyed God at a time when appearances 
indicated that his obedience would be the cause of the 
failure of both God 's promise and his own long cherish- 
ed hope. Gen. 22: 1, 2. Doubtless Noah's faith counted 
to him for righteousness, because he obeyed God, not- 
withstanding the jeers and taunts of those who scouted 
the idea of a rainfall sufficient to bear up a vessel of so 
great a size that it would contain pairs of the principal 
animals of the earth and food for their sustenance for 
nearly a year. Yes, kind reader, if you have faith like 
these men, — faith productive of unquestioning obedi- 
ence under like difficulties, God's word for it, it will be 
imputed to you for righteousness. The question of the 
Philippian jailer which brought from Paul the answer, 
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be 
saved, " is asked in slightly different language in four 
places in the New Testament. In Mark 10: 17 it is the 
young man desiring to know what he might do **to in- 
herit eternal life. " In Acts 2: 87 it is the Jews who 
had put the Savior to death, inquiring of Peter "what 
must we do?" and in Acts 9: 6 it is the now believing 
persecutor of the saints, saying, "Lord, what wilt thou 
have me to do?" Now, if believing is aU that is required 
of one in order to complete acceptance with God, why is 
not the same answer given as to the jailer in Acts 16: 30? 
The reason is obvious to the careful student of the 
Bible. In Acts 2: 37 the Jews had already believed,as the 
context shows, else they would not have made such an 
inquiry. By asking this question and readily complying 
with the answer given, in so public a manner, they made 
profession, or as it is frequently called, coTifession of 
their new belief or conviction in regard to the matter 
of the divinity of Christ. Hence, they were told to do 
the two other things, viz: repent and be baptized, 



—48— 

(ver. 38). In the case of Paul (Acts 9: 6) we find that 
the question was not answered immediately, but he 
was left three days, during which he neither ate nor 
drank. The inference that he repented during this 
period seems clearly deducible from his conduct during 
the time and his uniform teaching on the subject ever 
afterwards. The 20th verse of this (9th) chapter shows 
that he made public profession of his conviction, and 
Acts 22: 16, that he was baptized in obedience to the 
command of Christ through Ananias. 

Had faith (belief) been all which is required of man in 
order to his acceptance with God, the answer given by 
Christ to the young man as recorded in Mark 10: 17 
would doubtless have been different; perhaps as follows: 
^^By the form of your question it appears that you 
recognize my claim to be the Son of God: this is all that 
is needful to secure the eternal life about which you 
inquire. You have 'great possessions;' benevolence 
with them will be very commendable, but it cannot 
contribute to your eternal welfare, for that is secured 
by your faith." Instead of saying to Nicodemus, 
'^Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3: 5), he 
would doubtless have said, ''You say I am a teacher 
come from God: you thereby acknowledge my divine 
character and mission; this is all that is requisite to 
your salvation. " To the question, ''Men and brethren, 
what shall we do," asked by the Jews on the day of 
Pentecost, Peter should have answered, "You have 
been cut to the heart by the awful conviction (belief) 
that what I say as to your having slain the Messiah is 
true; and this being sO; you need do nothing more, as 
this belief in my statement of his divinity is all which 
God requires of you in order to salvation. When Paul 
was stricken down on his way to Damascus, and Christ 



—49— 

spoke to him personally in such a manner as to pro- 
duce an immediate change in his belief as to the divine 
mission of the Master, and he asked, "Lord what wilt 
thou have me to do?", the answer should not have been, 
*^ Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, "(Acts 
22: 16) because if faith alone secures pardon, he had no 
sins to be washed away, they having been already 
purged by faith. No, my friends, you will search in 
vain for the doctrine of faith alone in the Bible. If 
there be a single case recorded in that book in which 
faith or belief in God or his revelation, coupled with a 
refusal or neglect to obey his commands has secured 
his approval, it has eluded the diligent search of the 
writer of these lines. 

What object, then can our friends have in endeavor- 
ing to convince the people that they may be saved by 
faith alone? We can conceive of nothing to be accom- 
plished by such teaching unless it be to cause people to 
neglect or repudiate all else; and surely no good pur- 
pose can be thereby subserved. 

The New Testament scriptures ascribe salvation to 
faith or belief , (Acts 16: 31; John 3: 16), grace, (Rom. 
3: 4), baptism (1 Pet. 3: 21), the blood of Christ (1 Jotin 
1: 7), works (James 2: 21; 2 Pet. 1:5-11). How any 
one can say that we are saved by faith alone in view of 
these positive statements of the scriptures, we can 
understand upon but a single theory. That theory is 
that people become so attached to the doctrines of 
THEIR CHURCH, and so impressed with the idea that 
there is no important truth not therein contained that 
they unwittingly give undue emphasis to the scriptures 
which seem to sustain them, and, consequently do not 
diligently examine the texts which appear opposed 
thereto. We now pass to the next important step, viz: 



-50- 



REPENTANCE. 

This is one of the things of which little need be said, 
provided much is done. We ha,ve seen many defini- 
tions of this word, all more or less artful, if not accu- 
rate. The Newspaper Syndicate Edition of the Ency- 
clopedic Dictionary gives: '^Such sorrow for the past 
as leads to amendment in life. " We take this to be an 
approximately accurate definition of the word, but if we 
can ascertain the sense in which it is used in the Script- 
ures, and so use it in our dealings with scriptural mat- 
ters, we shall make no mistake. In Matt. 3:7, in the 
sentence, ''Bring forth, therefore fruits 7neet for re- 
pentanoe, " the words here given in italics have a mar- 
ginal rendering, ' ^answerable for reformation in life, ' ' 
while the Living Oracles gives ^ ^proper for reforma- 
tion.^^ In Heb. 12: 16, 17, it is said that Esau, having 
sold his birthright, afterwards ''found no place [op- 
portunity] for repentance, though he sought it care- 
fully with tears." 

If repentance consists of sorrow or regret, regard- 
less of reformation, then Esau had abundant place (op- 
portunity) therefor. In fact, our place or opportunity 
for that kind of repentance will doubtless last as long 
as consciousness. Here, then, is a passage of script- 
ure which cannot be reconciled with any definition of 
the word which does not involve reformation. But we 
have in the very words of the Master a suflSicient state- 
ment to enable us to determine just what was meant. 
In Matt. 12: 41 he said that the men of Nineveh "re- 
pented at the preaching of Jonah. " If we turn to the 
history of the matter about which he was speaking we 
will find just what they did, which he called repentance. 
In Jonah 3: 10 it is said, "And God saw their works, 
that they turned from their evil way. " The remainder 
of the verse removes any doubt which might have been 



1 



—51- 

left: *^And God repented of the evil that he said he 
would do unto them: and he did it not. What did God 
do? He repented; he charged his purpose; reversed 
his course. He did not sorrowfully or regretfully con- 
tinue the same course. "We have found no case where 
the context throws any light on the meaning of the 
word in which it does not appear that reformation of 
life was intended. If the Scriptures record a single 
case in which sorrow or regret, coupled with a per- 
sistent continuance in evil doing has been accepted by 
God as repentapce, it has escaped our observation. 
We are convinced that no such case is recorded. To 
illustrate: I have pushed a man into the water. Wheth- 
er it was by negligence, or sudden heat of passion, or 
by wilful and deliberate malice, is of secondary im- 
portance to the drowning man. What he needs is as- 
sistance. I stand on the bank of the stream in an atti- 
tude of superlative agony, protesting great distress at 
his condition, yet make no effort to save him, simply 
because it involves some discomfort; perhaps slight 
danger of injury. Would not such repentance be quite 
unsatisfactory to the drowning man? Again: I have 
obtained an unscrupulous advantage over a fellow- man 
in a financial transaction, against which the civil law 
furnishes no adequate redress. I profess great sor- 
row for having done so, yet retain the fruits of the 
fraud. What availeth such sorrow? Men act with a 
view to producing results. So universally is this true 
that it becomes almost impossible to dis-sociate an act 
from its legitimate consequences. To say that we are 
sorry for an act, but glad of the legitimate and inevi- 
table consequences thereof, — consequences which 
could not possibly have been without the occurrence of 
the act itself, — is one of the grossest of solecisms. No 
such hiatus can exist between the efficient cause and 



—52— 

its direct and inevitable effect. If we imagine other- 
wise we deceive ourselves. Do we sincerely regret an 
act? If so we also regret the consequences if they are 
obvious and necessary. To regret an act is to wish 
that it had not occurred. To wish that it had not oc- 
curred is to wish that any one injured thereby were 
situated as if it had not occurred. The situation can 
be restored in no other wise than by restoring that of 
which the injured one has been deprived. We do not, 
therefore, truly repent as long as we voluntarily re- 
tain the fruits of a wrong to the injury or injustice of 
another. Moreover, a man may profess to believe that 
his former motives and methods have been wrong, and, 
being so convinced that he regrets, or has repented of 
them; yet, if he continues to pursue them, refusing 
to determine his life by, and in conformity to the new 
light he has received, we conclude that his convictions 
as to the impolicy of his former life are not very 
strong. 

So we see how intimately , and yet how logically and 
philosophically faith and repentance are connected. 
Faith — recently acquired faith — being a change of our 
life principle, — a conviction that the former principles 
by which our life had been determined were erroneous 
and not conducive to our best interests. Repentance 
is that change of conduct which brings it into harmony 
with, and conformity to, the newly recognized princi- 
ple. 

Here, then, is the true function of conscience (Latin, 
con^ together, and scire^ to know), sometimes called 
**the inward monitor"; that is, requiring us to conform 
our practice or conduct to our faith, belief or convic- 
tion. It is the joint or co-recognition of both the fact 
and rectitude of our conduct. 

A clear idea of what is right, coupled with a clear 



—53— 

knowledge of having so acted produces what is called a 
clear conscience. When our belief or conviction points 
to a certain way as being right, and our memory or 
consciousness informs us that we have not been pur- 
suing that way, — in other words, when our faith or 
conviction does not conform to our practice, the con- 
sciousness thereof annoys us, and we say that we are 
reproved by conscience^ i. e., the consciousness of the 
inconsistency. We are rebuked, — self rebuked by the 
knowledge that our faith and our practice do not coin- 
cide; — that our conduct is not determined by our con- 
viction; — that we are violating the standard of rectitude 
which we recognize as being correct. Conscience, 
therefore, is an infallible guide only when controlled 
by right convictions. 

Infallibly right convictions result from nothing less 
than infallibly reliable evidence. Infallibly reliable 
evidence concerning spiritual matters can be obtained 
from none but divine sources. The only divine source 
of religious information is the word of God as contain- 
ed in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. 
This is doubtless the meaning of the language used by 
the apostle in Rom. 10: 17, '^So, then, faith comes by 
hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The re- 
vised version gives &e^^e/ instead of faith. When we 
consider that books were rare at the time of the wri- 
ting of this epistle, and that the common people were 
not sufficiently educated to have read them, conse- 
quently instruction and admonition were chiefly oral, 
the meaning of this verse seems sufficiently clear. 
Slightly paraphrased: Faith (belief, conviction,) comes 
(is produced) by words addressed to the understand- 
ing (generally hearing or reading): and words compe- 
tent to produce correct conviction in spiritual matters 
are the words of God, By thus excluding from re- 



—54— 

ligious faith or belief all alleged truth save that which 
rests on divine testimony, and from religions prac- 
tices, rites and ceremonies, all matters not of religious 
faith, we acquiesce in God's having excluded from the 
divine plan of redemption all'contributions of human 
wisdom or presumption. 1 Cor. 1: 19, 25, 27, 28; 2: 1-5; 
3: 19. We thus bring our religious life into harmony 
with the scripture found in Rom. 14: 23, ''Whatsoever 
[in spiritual matters] is not of faith is sin. '' 



CHAPTER VI. 

PROFESSION. 

Or, as it is more frequently called, coTifession, though 
we regard it as somewhat unfortunate that the King 
James translators and modern clergymen have seen 
fit to render this word (Gr. homologia) so awkwardly. 
The verb form, Jiomologeo (homos^ alike, and logos, 
word, speech, language, reason, etc.), is rendered by 
Bagster : to speak in accordance, to adopt the same terms, 
to avow frankly, to profess, to declare openly, etc. It is 
rendered pro/ess in Matt. 7: 28, "And then will I pro- 
fess unto them, I never knew you. '' Likewise in 1 Tim. 
6: 12, ''and hast professed a good profession [kai homo- 
logesas ten kalin homologian] before many witnesses. " 
A man is said to confess a fault or a crime, to admit a 
liability or an obligation, and to profess a belief or a 
conviction. 

At the time of writing the words which now consti- 
tute the New Testament an acknowledgment of a be- 
lief in the divinity of Christ was considered little, if 
any short of a crime; hence the term confess was not 
so much of a misnomer as at the present. Be this as 
it may, profession or confession of the religion of Je- 



—m— 

BUS Christ consists of a public assumption of the du- 
ties, obligations and responsibilities which an intelli- 
gent faith or belief in his divinity imposes. This ac- 
cords with reason, and is in harmony with our obser- 
vation and experience in secular affairs as well as re- 
ligious. The patriot of 1776 who believed that the Col- 
onies * 'ought to be free and independent states," yet 
never raised his voice in advocacy nor his hand in de- 
fense of his belief, resembles the political reformer 
who goes on acquiescing in the selection of wicked and 
corrupt men for national and municipal offices. They 
both deserve to be victims of the most abject and venal 
oppression. The conviction which is suppressed 
through fear or shame at a time when duty requires 
its assertion will never crystalize into reformation of 
life. In the light of the foregoing propositions the fol- 
lowing scriptures seem reasonably clear, viz: ''For 
whosoever shall be ashamed of me and my words, of 
him shall the Son of Man be ashamed when he shall 
come in his glory. " Luke 9: 26. ''Nevertheless many 
of the chief rulers believed on him; but because of the 
Pharisees they did not confess [profess to believe on] 
him lest they should be put out of the synagogue. " 
John 12: 26. "Whosoever shall confess [profess to be- 
lieve] me before men, him will I confess [acknowledge] 
before my Father which is in heaven. " Matt. 10: 32. 
"If thou shalt confess [profess to believe] with thy 
mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart [mind] 
that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be 
saved. For [because] with the heart [mind] man be- 
lieveth unto [Gr. eis, into] righteousness, and with the 
mouth confession [homologetai, profession]is made unto 
salvation. These scriptures do not add emphasis to 
the proposition that profession is a non-essential, but 
associate it very intimately with faith or belief. But 



—56- 

it is said that '*man believeth unto [into] righteous- 
ness," hence when he has believed he is righteous. 
Webster defines righteousness as *^the quality of being 
righteous, exact rectitude, purity, uprightness of char- 
acter, etc. How can a man believe into exact rectitude 
without putting his belief into practice? 

But what, it may oe asked, is it which we must pro- 
fess? Undoubtedly that which we believe. One who pro- 
fessses more is a hypocrite, and the fate of all hypo- 
crites is clearly revealed. . Matt. 24: 51. But what 
are we required to believe? Here, again, the Sacred 
Text comes to our relief with a full and complete an- 
swer, thereby saving us the risk of depending on hu- 
man wisdom. In Heb. 11: 6 we are informed that ^'he 
that cometh to God must believe that he is [exists] and 
that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek 
him." '*But these are written that ye might believe 
that Jesus is the anointed, the Son of God; and that be- 
lieving ye might have life through his name. John 20: 31. 

In Matt. 16: 16 Peter is represented as saying, *T?hou 
art the Christ [anointed], the Son of the living God, " 
and in verse 18 Christ declares that declaration to be 
the foundation truth on which the spiritual fabric of 
his future church is to rest. In Acts 8: 37 the Ethio- 
pian requested baptism, and Philip informed him that 
it would be conditioned on his sincere belief (laith). He 
then declared or professed a belief in the divinity oi 
Christ, and Philip accepted this as a compliance with 
the condition. So we see, we are to profess a belief in 
the divine character and mission of the Christ, as au- 
thenticated by God's having raised him from the dead. 
Rom. 1: 4; 10: 9. We deem it worthy of remark that 
not one word is said, nor one hint given in the entire 
sacred writings about the necessity of a belief in fore- 
ordination, total depravity, predestination, close ' com- 



—57— 

munion, final perseverance; trans-substantiation, con- 
substantiation, God's purpose in requiring baptism, or 
the different modes by which it may be administered. 
Not a word or a hint that a belief in any of the creeds, 
confessions, theological dogmas, or the variant isms or 
ologies which the skill of man has devised, and on 
which so much time and energy have been expended, 
is necessary, or even helpful to the honest seeker 
after truth, in his efforts to become a Christian, 

Even such of the above propositions as are clearly 
taught in the scriptures were never laid down as pre- 
requisite to becoming a Christian, however important 
they may have been regarded as elements in the de- 
velopementof Christian character. To say that one 
must have a clear understanding of the purposes and 
consequences of each act of obedience, before it can be 
acceptably rendered, is to debar all except thorough 
biblical scholars from important religious benefits and 
privileges, as well as to exempt all others from import- 
ant duties and obligations. The apostles required no 
higher intelligence concerning an act than was re- 
quisite to its proper performance. Have we the right 
to demand more? If so, whence obtained we such 
right? Yet we see the various denominations, claiming 
to be invested with the authority of THECHURCH re- 
quiring of infants and adult novices a profession of be- 
lief in propositions beyond the comprehension of any 
save those having superior intelligence and Bible 
scholarship. Even from the standpoint of human wis- 
dom, how irrational does it appear to require of one the 
profession of a belief in that concerning which he does 
not even pretend to possess an elementary knowledge? 
Does it not look like demanding of a student at matricu- 
lation the accuracy and intelligence of the graduate? In 
the times of the early church it was not so. If one had 



—58— 

a rational understanding of the character and attri- 
butes of God, believed in the divine character and 
mission of Christ as taught in the New Testament, and 
signified a willingness to render sincere obedience to 
his commands, such a one was regarded as a fit subject 
for what is sometimes designated the initiatory ordi- 
nance, to wit: baptism, which will be considered after a 
few practical suggestions concerning what has been 
said of confession, or rather profession. Suppose 
Peter or the Ethiopian had made the profession which 
they did without actually believing it; or even without 
any definite belief or conviction on the subject, what 
would it have availed them? James 2: 14-26. Or, sup- 
pose they actually believed in the divine character and 
mission of Christ, but never took the trouble or time to 
ascertain what he taught or the kind of obedience he 
required, but remained in ignorance of the conditions 
requisite to obtaining his favor. Or suppose that they 
did believe and understand God's commands, but re- 
fused to obey them. What would it have availed them? 
Hence, we see that profession is like faith in one re- 
spect, viz: it amounts to little if not acted upon. Is this 
not universally true in moral and physical affairs? 
When, where and how did one ever receive a benefit 
from the profession or possession of a belief in secular 
enterprises while maintaining a careless inactivity in 
his attitude thereto? Is causation ignored and the law 
of sequence suspended as soon as we cross the thres- 
hold dividing the temporal from the spiritual realm of 
thought and action? To profess a belief in the divinity 
of Christ is to profess a belief in his possession of the 
attributes of divinity, viz: wisdom, goodness, etc. To 
refuse to be guided by his direction while professing to 
believe in the infinity of his wisdom and goodness is to 
nullify profession by practice. Wherein do we benefit 



—59- 

our selves, or a cause, a principle or an institution by 
professing adherence thereto, while our acts sustain 
the opposition, or even favor neutrality? He who be- 
lieves that which he dares not profess or practice is a 
coward. He who professes that which he neither be- 
lieves nor practices is a hypocrite. He who professes 
and practices that which he does not believe is a per- 
verter of truth. Is this the character of the people 
who are to constitute the kingdom of God? If so, no 
wonder that many good men hesitate to enter it. So 
we see clearly that the character which is acceptable to 
God is the one who has correct belief or convictions, 
has the courage to assert them, and the manhood to 
determine his life by them. 



CHAPTER VII. 

BAPTISM. 

So much has been said and written on this subject 
by men of superior piety and scholarship that we ap- 
proach it with much hesitation. About aU we have 
ever heard or read on this much abused controversy 
bears evidence of having been inspired by mingled 
motives. Among those plainly apparent we have been 
able to discover ambition, personal and denominational 
pride, party spirit, obstinacy, financial and political in- 
fluence, and we are pleased to say, love of truth. In 
some of the essays and treatises one or more of the 
above named motives seemed to predominate; in others 
all appeared to us as wielding approximately equal in- 
fluence. It has been the earnest and prayerful en- 
deavor of the writer hereof to eliminate from these 
incongruous considerations aU except the last. How 
well he has succeeded, must be left to the honest 



—60— 

reader and the Great Judge of all. We do not conceive 
it probable that this work will ever contribute a dollar I 
to the wealth or a syllable to the fame of the writer. || 
Even should thousands read and act in accordance with 
the suggestions herein contained, they could not com- 
bine to swell the number or expand the influence of 
any party, sect or denomination which might contri- 
bute to the interest of the writer in the remotest de- 
gree. 

The writer hereof doubtless differs, in this respect at 
least, from any and all the other writers and speakers 
whose treatment of this question he has been fortunate 
enough to secure and consider. What, then, save ob- 
stinacy could indace the writer to ignore or minimize 
the evidences which tend to militate against the posi- 
tions herein assumed? If there be in existence a 
treatise on this vexed question the sole aim of which 
clearly appears to be a presentation of the truths the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, it has not been 
my good fortune to secure it, 

®We put forward for ourselves no claim for superior 
honesty or wisdom; nor do we charge other writers on 
this much controverted question with willful perver- 
sion. We do believe, however, that it is possible for 
men of good intentions, benevolent impulses and 
superior intelligence to follow the traditions of the 
fathers and yield to the pressure of party zeal till any 
truth which does not come to them through approved 
denominational channels, or appears out of harmony 
with their party doctrines will have little probability 
of impressing them. Under such circumstances, the 
average man is as unfit to deal fairly and truly with 
these controverted questions as he would be to act as 
judge or juror in the trial of a case involving the highest 
interest of himself or his dearest friends. Unfortu- 



—61— 

nately, the controversy over the mode of baptism has 
been waged almost exclusively by men who were vio- 
lent religions partisans, and possessed of intense de- 
nominational zeal. If there be noted exceptions to this 
rule they have eluded my vigilance. 

What is commonly known as the * ^Authorized Ver- 
sion" of the Bible is a translation from the Greek, 
made in the early part of the Seventeenth century by 
eminent scholars of the Church of England under the 
direction of King James the First of Great Britain. Ac- 
cording to the structural organism of that church 
(Episcopal) the king was its supreme head, ex officio. It 
was soon after the Protestant Reformation. The 
Church of England had but recently sprung into exist- 
ence, being composed of the English members of the 
Roman or Catholic Church, who had withdrawn from 
the Mother Church almost in a body. 

Many of the doctrines, rites, ceremonies, ordinances 
and traditions of the Mother Institution had been 
transferred, or as it is expressed in the Confession of 
Faith, retained^ into the new hierarchy on the strength 
of their traditional sanctity without any very close or 
critical consideration. Among these were the as- 
sumption of legislative authority by the church and 
baptism by aspersion and affusion. When the trans- 
lation was made the controversy over the mode was on. 
The act was expressed in the Greek by the words 

. bapto and haptidzo^ with their variations and inflections. 
These two words, in their different modes, tenses, etc., 
occur numerous times and in various places in both the 
Old and New Testaments where they have no reference 
to the ordinance commanded by the Savior. In such 

^ eases they were translated into elegant English by 
some word supposed to be a fair equivalent for the 
idea conveyed by the Greek text. In the Old Testa- 



—62— 

ment there is no place where the words or either of 
them is used in reference to the ordinance which we 
call baptism, as that rite is not named at all therein. In 
the places in the New Testament where the ordinance 
is intended, the words are not translated at all; but are 
simply given an ending to correspond with English 
words, and otherwise literally transferred from the 
Greek into the English without any rendering or trans- 
lation whatever. The words baptize and baptism as 
they appear in the English Bible are not English words 
at all, but simply Greek words left in the English 
Bible. Why was not this done in the Old Testament as 
wellastheNew? The words bapto and baptidzo si^re found 
scores of times in the Greek Old Testament, but the 
words baptize and baptism are neither found at all in 
the English Old Testament; they are there translated 
in every case. They are also translated in the New 
Testament in cases where the ordinance is not alluded 
to except in a few instances. This fact alone should 
awaken a spirit of investigation, if not suspicion in the 
mind of every honest seeker after religious truth. Let 
us illustrate the point by a concrete example. A 
wealthy relative dies at Athens, Greece, leaving you by 
his will a large amount of valuable property contingent 
on a few simple conditions. A copy of the will is sent 
you, duly authenticated, but it is in the Greek language 
with which you are not familiar. You procure an able 
classic to translate the document into ordinary English, 
and on examination find that one of the words descrip- 
tive of an important condition on which your legacy de- 
pends has not been translated at all, but simply given 
an English termination and thus literally transferred 
into the English copy with which you were furnished. 
On inquiry you find that this was done at the sugges- 
tion of some of the other claimants under the will who 



-63- 

were interested in giving it a particular meaning. 
Would you not be indignant, if not suspicious? Would 
you not insist on a translation of the word in question 
into intelligible English, in order that you might be 
enabled to comply with the conditions of the will cer- 
tainly and accurately? If counsel and parties differed 
as to the meaning of the word, you would look at other 
places where the same word had been used to ascertain 
if there translated, and by what English word. If still 
in doubt, you would consult lexicons and any other 
sources of information accessible which would enable 
you to ascertain the exact idea intended to be conveyed 
by the testator, in order that the bequest might be as- 
sured beyond a shadow of doubt. 

May we change the figure? You are in prison in the 
city of Athens under sentence of death for a crime of 
which you have been duly adjudged guilty. The Execu- 
tive offers you a full pardon on terms which you deem 
exceedingly generous. The document is, of course, in 
the Greek language, which you are unable to read. You 
engage a linguist, who renders it into lucid English, 
except a single word, and that only in places where it 
is descriptive of one of the conditions of your pardon. 
You ask him why he does this, and he informs you that 
there is no word in the English which is a sufficient 
equivalent. You find, however that in every other case 
this word has been translated without apparent diffi- 
culty and with marked uniformity. Upon further in- 
quiry you find that this same linguist has made numer- 
ous translations of the records of the court by which 
you were tried, and of the officer by whom you were 
pardoned; that this same word had been frequently 
used, and was always and uniformly translated without 
apparent question or difficulty. Would you not suspect 
that some motive other than your own welfare bad 



—64— 

prompted your learned translator to such i course? 
Honest and consistent reader, tLis is just what the 
translators of the Scriptures have done. These words 
(bapto and haptidzo) occur in the Greek Old Testament 
numbers of times, and are always and uniformly trans- 
lated. They are also found in the Greek New Testa- 
ment and where the ordinance called baptism is not 
meant, they are likewise uniformly translated, 
except in a few instances where their use is 
figurative. However, in all cases where the ordinance 
is referred to, the words are not translated at all, but 
transferred into the English copy. 

Furthermore, there is not a passage in either 
the Old or the New Testament in which the words 
hapto or baptidzo^ or either of them is rendered sprinkle 
or pour. If these words mean to sprinkle or to pour ^ is 
it not strange that as many times as they are used in 
both the Old Testament and New Testament, and as 
often as sprinkling and pouring is spoken of in the 
Bible, that neither of them is ever once so rendered? 
King James 'translators, though affusionists, through- 
out the entire Old Testament, and in nearly all the 
places in the New Testament where the church ordi- 
nance is not in view rendered these words into some 
English word which denoted a complete submergence 
of the subject in the element. 

It is our firm conviction that our immersionist 
friends are in error in their claim that these words 
always imply an application of the subject to the ele- 
ment. In the recorded cases of baptism of (or by) the 
Spirit, the element (the Spirit) was applied to the sub- 
ject or person. (Acts, chapters 2, 10, 19.) Likewise, 
the baptism of suffering which the Master underwent: 
the suffering was applied to him, rather than he to it. 
Matt. 20: 22; 26, 89; 27: 30-35. Slight suffering, how- 



—65— 

ever, was never called a baptism, even metonymically. 
Nor was a slight application of water or any other ele- 
ment so denominated. In all cases where the words 
were used in a literal sense they carried the idea of 
a complete submergence; when by metonymy, a com- 
plete overwhelming. 

Dr. George Campbell, the eminent linguist and theo- 
logian, late president of Mareschal College, Aberdeen, 
Scotland, (Presbyterian) was so sensibly impressed 
with the force of this application that in his interesting, 
and in many respects accurate, translation of Matt. 
20: 22 the text is rendered, *'Can ye drink of the cup 
such as I must drink, or undergo an immersion like that 
which I must undergo?" Even in the figurative or 
metonymic use of this word, this celebrated classic 
recognized no such diminution of force as is claimed by 
those who are disposed to trim or pare down its signi- 
fication. 

It is not the purpose of the writer hereof to enter 
into the details of a discussion of the mode of baptism. 
Arguments on that part alone of the subject herein 
treated might readily be adduced to fill a volume much 
larger than it is the intention to make this one. As 
stated in our apology, it has not been the aim of the 
writer so much to make this work exhaustive as sug- 
gestive of such matters as will enable the reader to 
reach a conclusion by his own research. If any reader 
of these pages shall find a single lexicon of recognized 
authority, or a single scholar of international note that 
gives either sprinkle or pour as a definition of hapto or 
baptidw^ the writer will regard it as a favor to be fur- 
nished with a reference thereto. 

Messrs Liddell & Scott, in a single edition of their 
Greek lexicon, gave these as remote meanings of said 
words, in deference to the wishesjof some of their 



—66— 

affusionist friends; but the scholarship of the world 
compelled them to recede from that position in the 
next and each succeeding edition of their valuable 
work. One more suggestion, and we leave with the 
reader that part of our investigation^ pertaining to the 
mode of baptism. Take your complete concordance; 
find every sentence in the entire Bible containing the 
word baptize in any of its modes or tenses. Write each 
of the sentences in full, except the word baptize, for 
which leave a blank space. First fill all the blank 
spaces with the word sprinJcle. Analyze and parse all 
the sentences. Note the difficulties and incongruities 
if any. Do the same with the word pour, and finally, 
with the word immerse. Now determine which of the 
three sets of sentences will all constitute intelligible 
and harmonious English. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

WHO ARE PROPER SUBJECTS FOR BAPTISM? 

This is a question on which there appears to be much 
controversy in the religious world; yet the clearness of 
the teachings of the Scriptures on this matter will 
doubtless surprise any one who has not taken the 
pains to make a complete and systematic investigation 
thereof. We believe it will be entirely safe to assert 
that the New Testament contains not a single hint of 
any person under the age of understanding having been 
baptized or commanded to be baptized by either Christ 
or any of his apostles. The inference is very strong 
that faith (belief), with some kind of a profession or 
acknowledgment thereof, and repentance, preceded 
baptism in every recorded case. An infant void of 
understanding is incapable of either. The prophet 



—67— 

Jeremiah, near six hundred years before the Christian 
era, gave a very suggestive description of the character 
of the citizenship under the new dispensation or better 
covenant, saying, *'And they shall teach no more every 
man his neighbor, and . . . his brother, saying, Know ye 
the Lord, for they shall know him from the least to the 
greatest, " etc. Jer. 31: 33, 34. Can the child without 
understanding comprehend (know) God? Paul in his 
letter to the Hebrews twice quotes this prophecy and 
explains that it was fulfilled and in force at the time of 
the writing of that document. Heb. 8: 11, and 10: 16. 
The New Testament scriptures which are sometimes 
quoted to prove that infants were baptized are those in 
which "household baptisms "and "household salvation" 
are spoken of. Our paedo-baptist friends are, how- 
ever, compelled to resort to what is called, "single 
premise logic" in order to draw their conclusions 
from these passages. A correct syllogism might be 
framed after the following style, to wit: 

1. Households or families were baptized in apostolic 
times. 

2. These households contained children under the 
age of understanding. 

3. Therefore such children were baptized. 

That the major premise of the above syllogism is a 
correct statement of a fact we will readily concede. 
How about the minor? We shall see. The first case of 
household salvation, and baptism to which we invite 
attention is found in the 10th and 11th chapters of 
Acts. In chapter 11:13,14 we find these words; 
"Send men to Joppa, and call one Simon whose sur- 
name is Peter, who shall tell thee words whereby thou 
and thy house shall be saved. But who constituted his 
house? In chapter 10: 24 it is said that "Cornelius 
waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen 



—68— 

and near friends. " If he had children they certainly 
were his * ^kinsmen. " In verse 33 of this chapter he is 
represented as saying, *^we are all (including kinsmen) 
here present before God to hear all things that are 
commanded thee of God. " In verse 44 we are informed 
that '* while Peter yet spake the Holy Ghost fell on all 
them that heard the word. " Verse 46 says that '*they 
spake with tongues and magnified God, " and verse 48 
records that '*they prayed him to tarry with them cer- 
tain days." If therefore, Cornelius had children still 
members of his household, they all heard the word, the 
Holy Ghost fell on them in the gift of miraculous speak- 
ing, and they joined in the invitation extended to Peter 
to tarry with them certain days. They were old enough 
to reason intelligently, and to be entrusted with miracu- 
lous power. 

The next case of household salvation is found in Acts 
16, and is all recorded in two short verses, 15 and 16. 
'*And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of pur- 
ple of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, 
heard us, whose heart the Lord opened that she attend- 
ed to the things spoken of Paul: And when she was 
baptized, and her Jiousehold^ she besought us, saying, 
If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come 
into my house and abide there. And she constrained 
us." Here we find not the slightest hint as to the 
number or character of the members of the household 
of this most excellent woman. It nowhere appears that 
she even had a husband, much less children; or if both, 
the record is silent as to their ages. 

That there were children in the household of Lydia 
under the age of understanding, rests on nought but 
the baldest assertion. It is supported by no evidence 
whatever. 

The next case of household salvation we find recorded 



—69— 

in the same chapter, Acts 16: 25 to 34. This case has 
often been cited as evidence that baptism could not 
have been by immersion, because the Jails were not 
fitted for its administration by this mode. Prom what 
source this information was obtained we do not know, 
nor do we deem it important to inquire, because it is 
entirely clear that they were not baptized in the jail. 
Verses 29, 30 inform us that the jailor called for a light 
and went in ''and brought them out" of the jail. Then 
follow the instruction, the bathing of their lacerated 
bodies and the baptizing^ after which they were brought 
*'into his house." 

Where they were, and what conveniences were avail- 
able for the washing of their bleeding backs and bap- 
tizing them from the time they were taken out of the 
prison till they were brought "into his house" does not 
appear. Certainly, it requires no great stretch of the 
imagination to assume that adequate means were 
found to do that which the record positively informs us 
was done. 

But how about there being children under the age of 
understanding? It is said that ''he and all his" were 
baptized. We readily concede that this meant his 
family, yea, and children, if he had them though but a 
day old. Verse 34 informs us that after the baptism the 
jailor, having brought them into his house," "set meat 
(food) before them, and rejoiced in God believing with 
all his house, ^^ 

Here we have in the space of three short verses, 63 
words: 

They all heard the word, verse 32; they all believed 
the word, verse 34; they all obeyed in baptism, verse 
33; and they all rejoiced in hope, verse 34. 

This conclusively shows that the members of the 
household of the jailor were of sufficient age to render 



—70— 

intelligent obedience. 

One or two more things connected with this part of 
the subject and we leave it. We not unfrequently hear 
it said that if we are baptized by the Holy Ghost, it 
matters little about water baptisLa. Much might be 
said of interest by way of distinction between the two. 
One is a gift^ conferred directly by God, the other a 
command which it is in our power to obey. When we 
are commanded to do a thing it is presumed that it is 
one toward the performance of which we can at least 
contribute. If God ever commanded any one to 
attempt or procure his own Holy Spirit baptism we are 
not aware of it. 

How God's doing for us something which we cannot 
do, can serve as a reason for our neglect or refusal to 
dothat which we are commanded, and are able to do, 
does not appear, nor do our friends undertake to inform 
us. The three prominent Holy Ghost baptisms record- 
ed in the New Testament are found in Acts chapters 
2, 10, and 19 respectively. In all the cases the re- 
cipients were enabled to speak languages other than 
their vernacular, and which they had not learned. 
Acts 2: 7-13; 10: 56, and 19: 6. Peter evidently deem- 
ed it appropriate to baptize in water those who had 
already been baptized by the Holy Spirit. Acts 10: 
44-48. We shall do well to follow his example, even 
should there be well authenticated cases at the present 
time, accompanied by the same signs. This, however, 
we believe it would be difficult to demonstrate. 

Another question mach discussed by the religious 
world is whether or not baptism is essential to salva- 
tion. We regard this as a very unprofitable question, 
and we advert to it for the purpose of suggestingittobe 
so, rather than of determining the question itself. It 
has been shown under head of faith that a conviction is 



—71— 

a mere barren ideality except as it may serve to de- 
termine action. If we pursue the inquiry as to the 
essentiality of baptism with the intention of neglecting 
or refusing obedience in case we conclude it to be non- 
essential, such a course amounts to setting up our 
judgment, rather than God's commands, as the crite- 
rion of our action. Is God to be pleased by our 
attempts to bring his commands to the standard of our 
wisdom, rather than our conduct to the standard of his 
authority? If we intend to obey in any event, why 
expend our time and energy in endeavors to ascertain 
its necessity? If we are simply seeking for an ap- 
parently plausible excuse for our neglect or refusal to 
comply with his commands, we will do well to subject 
our position to close scrutiny. The entire Bible does 
not record a single instance of God's blessing or ap- 
proval having been secured under the promptings of 
such motives. Then, our logic may lead us to erro- 
neous conclusions, the consequences of which no man 
can determine. 

The whole duty of man is to ^^Pear God and keep his 
commandments." Eccl. 12: 13. It is no part of 
man's duty to determine which of the commands 
deserves obedience. There are many scriptures 
which indicate that God regards a wilful rejection 
of one of his commands or institutions, as an abandon- 
ment of his authority as a life-guiding principle. 1 Sam. 
8: 7; Luke 7: 30. Prom the first of the above passages 
it appears that God regarded the setting up of a king 
over Israel contrary to his wishes as a rejection of 
himself as their ruler, and from the second it appears 
that the refusal of the Pharisees and lawyers to submit 
to the baptism of John was taken as a rejection of ''the 
counsel of God against themselves. " In John 3: 5 we 
find the language of Christ to Nicodemus, * 'Except 9> 



—72— 

man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter 
the kingdom of God," In Acts 2: 38 the words of Peter 
are "Repent and be baptized,— for the remission of 
sins. " Here both repentance and baptism are named 
as contributing to the remission of sins, and in Acts 
22: 16 it is given as a means of '^washing away sins." 
In what way baptism can wash away sins, or even con- 
tribute to that effect, it is not my purpose to determine, 
nor is it necessary for me to know. Even if the ex- 
pression be figurative it must represent some principle, 
and hence, have been intended to impress us with the 
importance of obedience to this command. To our 
mind, there can be no higher or more satisfactory evi- 
dence of loyalty than a cheerful and accurate obedience 
to each command, and sacrifice of every desire, without 
knowing or asking for a reason. Nor can there be any 
better evidence of a lack of devout faith than the refusal 
to obey the commands of a superior unless first satis- 
fied of their importance and expediency. At any rate, 
it does not seem to us to indicate a high degree of de- 
votion nor an attitude of safety for us to conclude that 
baptism is unnecessary, and to refuse or neglect a 
compliance therewith, in view of the testimony above 
quoted. Obedience is certainly safe: refusal or neglect 
may not be. In refusing compliance with this com- 
mand we voluntarily assume a risk for which there is 
not the slightest inducement. We do not act thus in 
our temporal affairs. 

In dealing with our earthly interests our rule is: "In 
matters involving large interests and grave conse- 
quences, if there be a safe side, take it and run no 
risk." 

We opine that some one is now ready to ask if this is 
all that is necessary for one to do in order to become a 
Christian. We answer that this is all which is required 



—73— 

by the Holy Scriptures. If they be God's word, and 
his word be true, these four steps, sincerely, intelli- 
gently, and courageously taken will make one a Chris- 
tian, viz: 

1. Faith, or a change of conviction. 

2. Repentance, or a change of conduct. 

3. Profession, or public change of attitude. 

4. Baptism, or the consummating act in the change 
of relation. 

CHAPTER IX. 

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 

"But, " it is objected, "if faith, repentance, profession 
and baptism will make one a Christian, four things are 
ignored which have long been regarded by theologians 
as important, if not essential in the process of conver- 
sion^ viz: prayer, the new heart, the netv birth and the 
work of the Spirit 

We should, by all means, avoid under-rating the im- 
portance of prayer. It is weU said in the Scriptures 
that men should "pray everywhere." 1 Tim. 2:8. 
But why pray God to forgive us, while refusing to 
perform the conditions on which he hB,s promised to 
forgive us? The Scriptures are full of the promises of 
God to the obedient; yet we plead with him for pardon 
for us and our friends, meanwhile neglecting, yea, re- 
fusing to comply with the conditions ^he has provided 
for this very purpose. Is this reasonable? Suppose a 
man to have been in open rebellion against the sovereign 
of a state, and under sentence of death therefor. The 
merciful ruler visits him in the prison, and offers him 
a full, free, and immediate pardon on condition that he 
has changed his mind, openly renounces his opposition. 



—74— 

submits to some formal requirement, and ever after 
lives a good and loyal citizen. Wha t would we think of this 
man, if, instead of complying with the easy conditions, 
he should prostrate himself and implore mercy? Have 
we not all seen and heard inquirers advised to just such 
a course by those who ought to have known better? 
With all the importance of prayer, it has its purposes, 
and, doubtless its limitations. We have no satisfactory 
evidence that one of its virtues consists of its efficacy 
in inducing God to do for us that which he has com- 
manded us, and given us the power to do for ourselves. 
The use of prayer in raising a crop of corn was very 
suggestively explained by the old farmer: 

**It's right to pray both night and morn, 

As every farmer knows 
And the place to pray for thrifty corn 

Is right between the rows. 

So, while I pray I use my hoe, 

And do my level best 
To kill the weeds in every row, 

And God, he does the rest.'' 

The Scriptures inform us that '*God is no respecter 
of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him and 
worketh righteousness is accepted of him. " Acts 10: 
34, 35; Rom. 2: 11. Likewise, '*He that turneth away 
his ear from hearing (heeding) the law, even his prayer 
shall be an abomination." Prov. 28: 9. "For not the 
hearers, . . . but the doers of the law shall be justi- 
fied." Rom. 2: 13. Let our prayers be accompanied 
by an intelligent faith, active energies, and an obedient 
disposition, and God will do for us all that our spiritual 
welfare demands. 

In order to determine whether or not we have ignor- 
ed the new heart, regeneration or the new birth and 



-75- 

the work of the Spirit it will be necessary to define just 
'what is meant by these terms. It will be well to re- 
member that the word heart is used in the Scriptures, 
not only in the sense of the vascular organ or muscle, 
but also in the sense of both the seat of the affections 
and of the intellect. In other words, the words heart 
and mind are used interchangeably. Jer. 7: 31; 19: 5 
and 32: 35. Therefore, from a New Testament stand- 
point a change of mind (conviction) would constitute a 
"change of heart" as weU as a change of affections. 
With these facts before us the solution is not difficult. 
That a literal change was made in the physical organ, 
is not pretended. In the case of Paul it is equally 
obvious that his affections were not changed from 
hatred to love before his mind was changed from unbe- 
lief to belief in the divinity of Christ. If by a ^'change 
of heart" is meant that change of emotion from opposi- 
tion to affection which is consequent on a change of con- 
viction and purpose, and which eventually culminates 
in a change of conduct, it is certainly involved in the 
course which we have indicated. If by "change of 
heart" is meant a change from that aversion which has 
prompted us to neglect or disregard his commands to 
that affection which impels us to a cheerful, accurate 
and ready obedience thereto, it is surely included in the 
outline we have given, for "This is (constitutes) the love 
of God, that we keep his commandments. " 1 John 5: 3. 
Begeneration and new birth are the same. One is the 
pure English, and the other the anglicised Latin term 
to express the identical idea. The Greeks used the 
same word to express a begetting and a parturition or 
bringing forth. When this word (gennao) in any of its 
inflections was used by them with reference to a male 
it conveyed the idea of a begetting; if of a female, that 
of a parturition or birth. The word of God is the seed, 



—76— 

the seminal or life giving principle, Mark4: 14,15; 
Matt. 13: 19-23. With this the good and honest heart 
(mind) is impregnated. John 6: 63. In James 1: 18 
this is explained to constitute the begetting. See also 
Luke 8: 11; 1 Peter 1: 23. Being of an obedient dis- 
position, and believing the gospel testimony, we are 
thereby constrained to enter the water in obedience to 
the command, and from which we emerge in the like- 
ness of a birth. John 3: 5; 1 Peter 3: 21; 1 Cor. 12: 13; 
Gal. 8: 27. Is not the new birth as thus described com- 
prehended in faith, repentance, profession and bap- 
tism? and do you know of any other process which will 
more completely harmonize with all that the Scriptures 
teach on the subject? But one is heard to object, *^this 
makes baptism save a man. " By no means. It rather 
shows that baptism is one of the conditions on whick 
God proposes to save one. But that by a compliance 
with this and the other conditions, viz: faith, repent- 
ance and profession, in their order and in the spirit of 
obedient sincerity will place one in the proper attitude 
to be the recipient of God's pardoning favor, is as true 
as that his word is true. 

But another objector insists that we entirely ignore 
the luorJc of the Spirit. Let us see, but first let us de- 
fine our terms, as much confusion has been wrought 
by religious teachers having used the word spirit in a 
careless or indefinite way. In John 14: 16 and 16: 7, 
8, 13 the word Spirit is used in the sense of a person. 
'^Howbeit, when the Spirit of truth is come, he will 
guide you into all truth. " In John 6: 63 the word is 
used in the sense of a revelation. *'The words that I 
speak unto you, they are spirit, " etc. In Rom. 8: 9 it 
is used in the sense of a controlling principle. "If any 
man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his. " 
In Rev. 1: 10 it is used in the sense of a mental condi- 



—77— 

tion. "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day. " When 
we speak of ''the Spirit, " it should be made to appear 
by the context or by qualifying words which one of 
these ideas we intend to convey. In a correct syllogism 
a pivotal word must carry the same meaning in each of 
the premises as is given to it in the conclusion. There 
is scarcely a proposition so inconsistent with logic that 
it may not be made to appear proven by a violation of 
this elementary rule. If by the ''work of the Spirit" 
is meant that the Spirit as a person, has given us 
through inspired men the Spirit as a revelation, which, 
being duly considered and believed, wrought in us the 
spirit as a controlling principle; — and if this intelligent 
consciousness of God's approval produced in us that 
mental condition sometimes called ''the spirit of peace"; 
— if, I say this is what is meant by "the work of the 
Spirit, " it clearly constitutes a part of what we have 
suggested in the foregoing pages. 

If by the term is meant an ecstatio emotion^ and that 
it is to be regarded as conclusive evidence of God's ap- 
proval or forgiveness of sins, then it is not to be found 
in the teachings of the Scriptures, and hence can be no 
part of our duty, nor an essential element in the work 
or worship of the Christian. 

Unfortunately for the average hearer, our clergy- 
men, as they are wont to be called, do not appear to 
appreciate the necessity of explaining these things as 
fully as we believe their importance demands. Whether 
this is because these distinction are deemed unimport- 
ant, or too well understood to require elaboration, or 
from some less cogent reason, we leave to be answered 
by such of them as may see fit to peruse these pages. 



•78- 



CHAPTER X. 

SCRIPTURAL. MEANS AND METHODS. 

We have already endeavored to show that the special 
mission which has been committed to the church is 
twofold, viz: 

1. The presentation of the gospel to the sinner or 
unbeliever, with a view to his conversion; that is, his 
acceptance of its facts, and obedience to its com- 
mands; and, 

2. Such instruction, admonition and encouragement 
to the believer as will contribute to his development to- 
ward ultimate perfection in Christian character. 

But what are the means, the methods, the true char- 
acter of the machinery by which these objects are to 
be accomplished? Here again we are constrained to 
appeal to the inspired word. "To the law and to the 
testimony." If there be any way of ascertaining the 
will of God in this matter except through the revelation 
he has given us by inspired men, I have no knowledge 
of it. "The secret things belong to God; but those 
things which are revealed belong to us a,nd our chil- 
dren." Deut. 29: 29. We have often heard it urged 
that, as God has committed to his church the work of 
accomplishing the two above objects, he will approve 
any means which will contribute to that end. This is 
the same old and much abused proposition that "the 
end justifies the means, " and will not bear the scrutiny 
of a critical analysis. It would justify the commission 
of perjury to secure the acquittal of one we believed to 
be innocent, or of murder to prevent the spread of that 
which we regard heresy. It furnished the justifica- 
tion for all the cruel murders, tortures and persecu- 
tions of the dark ages. In the absence of designated 



—79— 

means, God's command to accomplish a given object 
would authorize the best means only. 

Therefore, where adequate means have been desig- 
nated, and have been universally successful, we are 
justified in concluding that they are the best. Relig- 
ious sectarians say, * ^Let each one adopt such means 
and methods, and employ such machinery as to him 
seems appropriate. " They illustrate the proposition 
by a number of highways leading in different direc- 
tions at the outset, but eventually converging at the 
gate of the Celestial City. Unfortunately, the sacred 
writings furnish no basis for such a figure. They 
speak of but a single road, and describe it as being 
narrow and difficult, exhorting seekers to strive to the 
point of agony (Gr. agonidzesthe) to enter therein. Luke 
13: 24. The fallacy of this broad, and, as it is some- 
times termed, liberal view, becomes plainly apparent 
when considered from the standpoint of God's word or 
of our own observation. We will briefly consider these 
in their inverse order, both as to their importance and 
precedence of statement. From the standpoint of 
close and accurate observation, the different sects are 
seen to have been operating along this line for many 
centuries, with the result that the honest seeker after 
truth is bewildered by the many currents and counter- 
currents which make up the conflicting and confusing 
didactics of pen and pulpit. Among the many union 
efforts made by what are called the evangelical denomi- 
nations for the conversion of sinners, the writer of 
these pages has never once heard the directions given 
to inquirers which Peter gave on the day of Pentecost, 
those of Philip to the Ethiopian, or those of Ananias to 
Paul. On the few occasions when the instructions of 
Paul and Silas to the Philippian jailer were given, the 
fact that the other members of the family or house- 



—80— 

hold believed, submitted to baptism, and rejoiced in 
obedience, were entirely omitted. We have abundant 
reason for believing that in none of these union meet- 
ings would one be encouraged, — perhaps not even per- 
mitted — to quote the exact language of Peter or Ana- 
nias in answer to questions contained in Acts 2: 37, 38; 
22: 10, 16, or to similar ones. Not many years ago the 
writer was in one of the cities of the middle west noted 
for its learning and refinement, during one of these 
protracted efforts, in which most, if not all the Protes- 
tant churches joined. The services were conducted by 
a corps of the most noted musical and elocutionary 
evangelists known to the profession. Every available 
foot of space in the commodious meeting-house was oc- 
cupied by attentive listeners. For two consecutive 
evenings the subjects as announced in the daily press, 
were, * 'The New Heart," and *The New Birth." A 
Bible student, much interested in these subjects, at- 
tended these meetings and gave close attention to all 
that was said, but was unable to determine therefrom 
what was requisite to constitute the new birth or ob- 
tain the new heart. He so stated in a courteous, rever- 
ent, and respectful letter printed in one of the daily 
papers, and asked that the matter be fully explained, 
pointing out, at the same time, the conclusions he had 
formed from a personal examination of the scriptures 
bearing on the question, with such help as he had been 
able to obtain. Although he mailed a copy of the pa- 
per to each of the participating ministers, and stated 
that the inquiry was made in good faith, no answer 
was ever made to his inquiry. At the end of two 
weeks he wrote again through the newspaper insisting 
on an answer, and promising to respond promptly and 
cheerfully if his duty should be made clear from the 
Bible. That man's inquiry remains unanswered to- 



—81— 

day. If theologians who have given years of study to 
the Bible are unable to agree or unwilling to state pub- 
licly what God requires of a seeker after truth in or- 
der to salvation from his past sins, how can they ex- 
pect a novice in Bible knowledge to act with a clear 
head and steady nerve amid the confusion wrought by 
the neutralizing influences of conflicting voices and in- 
terests? 

Prof. lokiki lyenaga, Japanese Commissioner to 
Turkey, China, Persia, and India, a graduate of Ober- 
lin College, Ohio, and John Hopkins University, Balti- 
more, who was born in China of Japanese parents, de- 
livered an address at Indianapolis, Indiana, May 23, 
1902, in which he used the following language: 

While I do not accuse the missionaries of being the cause 
of the internal strife and disruption, I am not prejudiced when 
I say that they are often the cause of unrest and violent com- 
plications. Their methods of campaign are not always credit- 
able to the warriors of the cross. The very fact of dissention 
and diversities of creed among Protestant missionaries is a 
source of doubt and disquietude to the Chinaman, who is at a 
loss to know which is the true and which is the false. — Indiana- 
polis Sentinel, May 24, 1902, 

Candid reader, is the intelligent heathen very much to 
blame? What would you do amidst such confusion if 
you were in his place? 

A careful study of the history and teaching of the 
Bible will discover no more basis for this '*free for aU, " 
"go as you please" system of religion than is disclosed 
to the devout observer of its practical results. The 
proposition that all the churches are right, — that aU 
the conflicting and mutually neutralizing energies and 
influences will eventually culminate in contributing to 
a single and beneficent common end, — though pleasing 
to contemplate, and consoling to the indolent and half- 



—82— 

hearted Christian, finds no support whatever in the 
language of inspiration. The Israelites, on leaving 
Egypt, did not divide themselves into numerous com- 
panies, each taking that route for the land of promise 
which appeared the most delightful and the least diffi- 
cult, with the assurance of their respective head tribes- 
men that they would all converge at the Jordan, Gilgal, 
Bethel, or even at Jerusalem. They all followed the 
*^fiery, cloudy pillar" in the simple and single route 
designated, moving only when and as directed, and woe 
be to the company, great or small, which turned aside 
into the by-paths of pleasure, folly, indolence or ease. 
Nor was Moses commanded to construct different tab- 
ernacles for the accommodation of the variant tastes 
which were not congenial to the peculiar structure and 
arrangement of the one designed by Jehovah. Under 
the New Testament dispensation ''God is not the au- 
thor of confusion, " as he certainly would be had he 
sent forth various ambassadors among the people pre- 
scribing different terms of salvation, and contradic- 
tory means and methods of performing the work which 
he has commanded his children to do. Paul wrote to 
the Roman brethren to "mark them which cause di- 
visions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you 
have learned of me, and avoid them." Rom. 16: 17. 
Are the many conflicting and contradictory means and 
methods of carrying on religious "work according to^smd 
hence, authorized by the teaching (doctrine) of the great 
apostle? If not, they are contrary thereto. Does it 
not constitute division to separate a part of the follow- 
ers of Christ from the others in name, organization, 
doctrine, as well as modes, methods and places of wor- 
ship, on account of different taste, desire or opinion, as 
to the propriety of the various enterprises for carry- 
ing on the church work, and the different character or 



—83— 

kinds of machinery deemed suitable and pleasing for 
its accomplishment? No divisions can be according to 
the doctrine of Paul except such as are based on distinc- 
tionswhichhe has recognized in his teaching. If not aG- 
cording to his teaching, it must be contrary to it. Paul 
wrote to the brethren at Corinth, "Now I beseech you, 
brethren, by the name (authority) of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there 
be no division among you; but that ye be perfectly 
joined together in the same mind and the same judg- 
ment." 1 Cor. 1:10. It does not meet the case to 
say that our divisions are not concerning essentials. 
There is no word in the text nor ground for inference 
in the context which limits the proscribed divisions to 
such as are essential. The sentence is intensely em- 
phatic. '*Speak the same thing." 'ii^ot essentially the 
same, but the same. Be perfectly joined together in the 
SB>me mind a,nd the s^me judgment. Converse of the 
same facts; contemplate the same truths; from them 
draw the same conclusions. 

In the realm of spirit, — for it was not concerning 
temporal things he wrote, — let there be no divisions 
(Gr; schismata) among you. This principle is fully 
elaborated and beautifully illustrated in 1 Cor. 12: 14- 
27 in the close harmony which should exist among the 
different parts of the human body. In a sound body 
having a sane mind, no action is taken, no movement 
made except by the direction of the head. Such a 
body acts as a unit. In the directions of the head all 
the members cheerfully and promptly acquiesce. The 
other members do not command, they obey; they do 
not devise or contrive, they execute. Should the other 
members of the body assume to decide which of the 
commands of the head ought to be obeyed, and to de- 
vise independent schemes in accordance with their do- 



—84— 

sires for nourishment and sensation, the unity of the 
body would be destroyed. Hence God hath *^set the 
members every one of them in the body as it hath 
pleased him. " 1 Cor. 12: 18. He has assigned to each 
its sphere of action; to the head the function of design- 
ing and directing; to the other parts that of unques- 
tioning obedience. Why? To the end 'That there 
should be no schism (division) in the body; but that the 
members should have the same care one for the other. " 
ver. 25. Of this body Christ is the head. Eph. 1: 22, 
23; 4: 15; Col. 1: 18. If we are members other than the 
head we have no right to design and devise. Are we 
the feet? Then go where he commands. Are we the 
hands? Then do as he directs. Are we the mouth? 
Say that which he authorizes us to say. Thus avoid 
divisions. 

If the foregoing considerations were not sufficient to 
settle the question, the character of the schisms 
against which the apostle expostulated with such ve- 
hemence, would seem to fix the matter beyond contro- 
versy. Were they the kind regarded as essential ac- 
cording to the standards of present reckoning? By no 
means. The schism of the Corinthian brethren, so se- 
verely reproved by Paul, consisted simply of dividing 
themselves into parties bearing the names of great and 
good men, presumably on account of some good work 
done or great truth proclaimed by them respectively. 
Wherein lies the essentiality of separating into parties 
denominated as Pauline, Petrine, Appolonian, or Johan- 
nian, more than Lutheran, Calvanist, Wesleyan, or 
Campbellite? 1 Cor. 1: 12; 3: 4, 5. 

In one of the most earnest and pathetic prayers ever 
offered by the Savior, and in the very presence of im- 
pending death, he pleaded that they who should believe 
on him through the preaching of his apostles might be 



-85— 

united, even as he and the Father were united. He also 
very clearly indicated that their success in convincing 
the world of his divinity depended upon their mainte- 
nance of such unity. John 17: 11,21. How admirably 
do the appropriate words of the eminent Japanese pro- 
fessor in his Indianapolis speech harmonize with these 
words of scripture! What but wilful blindness pre- 
vents religionists from seeing the point and making the 
application? 

In view of what has just been said, we again quote 
Heb. 11: 6 with special reference to its bearing on the 
matter under immediate consideration. ** Without 
faith it is impossible to please God: for he that cometh 
to him must believe that he is (exists) and that he is the 
re warder of them that diligently seek him." This 
scripture is deemed susceptible of two constructions. 
In order to make the distinction between them clearly 
apparent we will state the proposition conversely, viz: 
"With faith it is possible to please God, " or **God is 
pleased with our faith." Now, does this mean that if 
we have faith, or believe in the existence of God and 
his disposition and ability to reward his diligent seek- 
ers, any act performed with a view of pleasing him will 
be acceptable, regardless of whether he has authorized 
it or not? Or does it mean that the act itself must have 
been produced by faith based on sufllcient evidence 
(God's word) in order to be acceptable to him? If the 
former be the correct interpretation of the sentence it 
would follow that every act of every monotheistic Pa- 
gan, Mohammedan, Jew or Christian, whether Protes- 
tant or Catholic, performed in the belief of its correct- 
ness, was and is acceptable to God, and well pleasing 
in his sight, because done through faith. Such a con- 
struction would make God the approver of every act of 
religious oppression done by every fanatic or religious 



—86— 

enthusiast from the persecution of the primitive disci- 
ples by Saul of Tarsus to the massacre of St. Barthol- 
omew. If the latter be the correct interpretation, the 
act must not only be the result of faith or belief that 
God so desires, but the faith or belief itself must have 
been authorized by the words of inspiration. Rom. 10: 
17; 14: 23. Let us resort to a familiar hypothesis in or- 
der to illustrate: A man is suffering from a deadly 
malady. I entreat him to consult a certain physician 
in whom I have implicit confidence, assuring him that 
he can thus be cured. He hesitates. I say to him, 
* ^Without faith in this physician it is impossible for 
you to be cured. " Do I mean that if he will simply ac- 
quiesce in my belief in the skill, integrity and benevo- 
lence of the physician he will be cured, independent of 
subjecting himself to the treatment which may be pre- 
scribed? Assuredly not. We all know that such 
would not be a fair or legitimate inference from my 
statement; but that in order to receive substantial bene- 
fit, his faith or confidence must be, both in kind and de- 
gree, such as would induce him to submit to the treat- 
ment prescribed, or he would receive no benefit there- 
from. 

In our prognosis and diagnosis of the sin-sick soul, 
however, we pursue an entirely different course. Hav- 
ing made a very superficial examination (or none at all) 
of the authorities, we join ourselves to one of the spir- 
itual isms or opathies which profess to have the exact for- 
mula for counteracting of the malady called sin. Though 
claimed to be taken from the same infallible treatise, 
scarcely any two of them are alike. We swallow with 
avidity the prescription of our particular school, which 
consists of a mixture unknown to the unf allible treatise 
from which all the remedies are supposed to have been 
taken. 



—87— 

May we change the figure? We are living in a famine 
and plague stricken land, among others as destitute and 
helpless as ourselves. All receive an invitation from a 
benevolent resident of a distant city of plenty to come 
and subsist on his bounty. A full description of the 
place, its manificent provision and apartments, and 
minute directions for the journey are gratuitously dis- 
tributed, with the positive statement that but a single 
route is safe or practicable. We divide ourselves into 
parties contrary to the direction of our host; and our 
chosen leaders, through jealousy, ambition, ignorance or 
interest persuade their respective companies that it is 
not discreet to pursue the same route and keep the 
same company of those who differ from us in taste, 
temperament, habits, opinion, and social standing. The 
respective companies take different routes, sometimes 
diametrically opposite, each being assured by its leader 
that while some doubt may exist as to the other roads^ 
ours, at least, will eventually end its tortuous course at 
the gate of the city of otir common benefactor. Could 
such an episode become an actuality in our temporal 
experience, what would be the unanimous verdict of all 
to whose knowledge its history should come? Undoubt- 
edly, rational people would say that those who refused 
to follow the plainly prescribed way deserved to be 
lost, and to perish in the confusion to which they had 
voluntarily and uselessly consigned themselves. 

In the preceding pages of this treatise considerable 
space was devoted to an exposition of 2 John 9, 10, 
* 'Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doc- 
trine of Christ hath not God, " etc. We now recur to it 
for the purpose of adding its emphasis to the peculiar 
phase of the subject under immediate consideration. 
If the standard of faith by which an act is to be meas- 
ured Cometh only "by the word of God;" (Rom. 10: 17) 



—88— 

and ** Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, " how can one be 
abiding in (within), and not transgressing or going be- 
yond the doctrine of Christ who induces a congrega- 
tion of believers to adopt, in his name (by his authority), 
any scheme, method, or enterprise, concerning which f 
his teaching is as silent as the grave? By this time it 
will doubtless have occurred to the diligent and un- 
biased reader how perfectly the doctrine of complete 
unity among disciples of Christ harmonizes with the 
principle of abiding within the limits of that which he 
has taught. 

That this principle is identical with leaving out of the 
worshiping assemblies the things for which we find no 
authority in the revelation that God has given for our 
guidance, requires neither the skill of the sophist nor 
the accomplished logician to discover. It is sufficiently 
evident to be axiomatic that if each and every congre- 
gation of professed believers, and each member thereof 
should confine their religious work and worship to the 
things, the times, the places, the manner, the methods, 
and the motive to which God has given his sanction, no 
schism could exist among his disciples. It may be laid 
down as a religious maxim that ^'Adherence to the word 
of God always tends to unjty; yielding to the wisdom and 
traditions of men tends to division.^^ 



CHAPTER XI. 

THE SUBJECTS OF RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSIES. 

Over what are the religious controversies of the 
present time? Are they not concerning what has been 
suggested by the wisdom or passion of man, rather 
than that which God has ordained? 



—89— 

'Tis not what God has authorized, 

Or what his law requires, 
But what man's wisdom has devised, 

And his vain heart desires, 

about which most of the schisms exist in the congrega- 
tions of to-day. Why, then, mar the work and worship 
of the assembly of God by the enterprises, schemes, 
attractions, ceremonies, and embellishments, all the 
product of human wisdom or folly as the case may be, 
either of which is as diverse as the education, taste, 
temperament, culture, disposition and environment of 
the people to be entertained thereby, and as unreliable 
as criteria of religious propriety as their habits and 
standards of morals. Every novel enterprise, scheme, 
method or ceremony introduced into the worshiping 
assemblies of Christians which is not authorized by the 
scriptures, but is believed by any of the members to be 
out of harmony therewith must be productive of 
schism, (from the Greek, schidzo^ to tear to rend, to 
split apart, etc.) Have we the right to rend, tear, or 
split into factions the body of Christ, which is the 
church? God forbid! Self preservation is the highest 
law of being, of aggregations as well as individuals. 
We have no more right to destroy one of God's institu- 
tions than to destroy one of his individual creatures. 
The church is one of God's aggregate creations. He 
has decreed that unity is one of the essentials to her 
vital and functional efficiency. Matt. 12: 25; John 17: 
21. Division, therefore, is destructive of her vital and 
functionary energy. It therefore follows that no mem- 
ber of the body has a right to insist upon any ceremony, 
method, scheme or custom not authorized by the wiU 
of Christ. 

WHAT IS GOD'S PLAN? 

To a devout believer in the Bible as God's revelation 
to man, it would seem superfluous to state that God's 



—90— 

way of accomplishing a thing is superior to man's. Is. 
55: 8, 9; 1 Cor. 1: 19, 20, 27, 28, and 2: 5, and 3: 19, 20. 
If then, God has given us a way, a plan, a method, it is 
infallibly safe to follow it. 

No man can say with certainty, — hence with safety, 
— that any other way will accomplish the same pur- 
pose. The question, therefore arises. Has God given 
us a way, a system, a plan, a method of conducting the 
worshipful services and proclaiming the gospel? That 
this question must be answered in the affirmative 
seems clearly inferrable from the following considera- 
tions, viz: 

1. God's innate perfection. In considering this di- 
vision of the subject, we desire to call into requisition 
the following scriptures: *^AsforGod, his ways are 
perfect." Psa. 18: 30. *^Known to God are all his 
works from the beginning." Acts 15: 18. God has 
never been known to leave or abandon one of his under 
takings unfinished or unperfected. When he under- 
takes a thing, he completes it. To say that he under- 
took to provide a way for the salvation of man and gave 
up the task before completing it would be to impeach 
his wisdom and power. To affirm that he inaugurated 
a reformation, to be carried forward by weak and falli- 
ble human beings, yet gave them no definite or com- 
prehensible plan or method of procedure, would be to 
place himself on an equality with his creatures, and 
make the success of his decrees depend on the wisdom 
and discretion of frail humanity. To assume that he 
has left the methods of procedure to their variant 
tastes, yet required them to '*speak the same things" 
and to be "perfectly joined in the same mind, " etc., — 
though knowing their tastes and trends are as unlike 
as the different circumstances on which they depend, 
— would be such folly as we cannot conceive as per- 



—91— 

taining to deity. To assert that he gave a general plan, 
but left the details to be worked out by as many con- 
fusing and conflicting methods, schemes, organizations 
and sects as there are differences in taste, talent, 
custom, and social conventionalities, is to make God 
the author of confusion, not order. 

We know that God is not the author of confusion in 
the physical world, for the motion of the planets has 
been arranged with such absolute precision that their 
eclipses and transits can be calculated to a fraction of 
a second for centuries in advance. All is perfect har- 
mony in the material universe, which is of so little im- 
portance in comparison to spiritual things that "they 
shall perish, — they shall wax old as doth a garment; — 
as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, "etc. Heb. 1: 11, 
12. As all "his works are known to him from the be- 
ginning, " to assume that he foresaw the social, poli- 
tical, material, and scientific changes which would de- 
mand a modification of his methods, yet made no pro- 
vision therefor, is to convict him of greater folly than a 
prudent human. It follows with all the force of a logical 
syllogism that as God has made no provision for any 
modification of the plan or method of procedure by 
which men were converted in apostolic times, that none 
is required by the exigencies of the times. Hence, the 
system or plan given by authority of inspired men 
needs no change or modification, but is as applicable to 
the present social, political, and other cosmic conditions 
as when practiced in its simplicity by the disciples in 
the primitive days of the apostolic church. 

2. The symbolic teaching of the Old Testament. It 
will not be consistent with the plan of this work to 
enter into the details of the Old Testament Symbolism. 

A few suggestions, however, which appear obvious 
in their bearing will not be out of place at this time. 



—92— 

The following propositions may be readily verified by 
any diligent Bible student, viz: 

The symbols of the Old Testament which prefigure 
the new dispensation, not only give the doctrines to be 
disseminated among the people, but also the manner of 
their dissemination. 

Notraceof human device or suggestion appears in 
either the construction or manipulation of the Old 
Testament symbols. 

There are symbols which appear to forbid human 
suggestion as to either the acts or methods. A few 
examples may be cited. God was to be their King. 

It would seem to have been implied that they 
should have no other. At least that God was not there- 
by pleased. 1 Sam. 8: 1-20. He was to be their law- 
giver, and it seems to have been implied that they 
should have no laws save such as he gave. Deut. 4: 2 
and 12: 32. They were to worship at Jerusalem. 
Deut. 12: 5, 6, 7. The implication is that it should be 
the exclusive place for national worship. 1 Kings 12: 
26-33. God led them in the wilderness by the fiery, 
cloudy pillar. Ex. 13: 21, 22. It seems to have been 
regarded complete and exclusive, for they only moved 
when and as it indicated. Num. 9: 15-23. 

It is highly probable that Uzzah recognized the mode 
of handling the ark which God had provided as being 
entirely appropriate. Ex.25: 13,14. If he had gone 
further and regarded it as exGlusive^ he would have 
made no mistake. Failing, however to do so, he lost 
his life. 2 Sam. 6: 6, 7. Let it be noticed that God 
smote him, "for his error, " not for wilful disobedience. 
We have no evidence that Nadab or Abihu regarded 
God's direction to take coals off the burning altar for 
the burning of incense on their censers as being in- 
appropriate. The inference is that they usually com- 



-93- 

plied with the directions so to do. Lev. 16: 12. The 
mistake which they seem to have made, was in suppos- 
ing that God's way might, under certain contingen- 
cies, be varied, and that they were competent to de- 
termine when such contingencies arose. The result 
was that they lost their lives. Lev. 10: 1, 2. We might 
multiply examples; but sufficient has been given to 
show that where God has provided a way for doing a 
thing, it is safe to follow it: to assume that we have the 
wisdom to decide that it may be varied, and when, is 
dangerous. 

Paul, writing to the Corinthian brethren concerning 
God's dealing with ancient Israel during the time when 
the Old Testament symbols were being introduced, in- 
formed them that "all these things happened to them 
for examples, and they were written for our admoni- 
tion," or instruction. Of what were these things 
examples to them (ancient Israel) concerning the 
lessons to be learned from the Old Testament symbols? 
Evidently, that God would not be pleased with, but 
would resent as presumptious and super-erogatory 
any suggestion or contribution human wisdom might 
make thereto. But of what was the tabernacle worship 
symbolic? Paul shows in the 8th, 9th and 10th chapters 
of the Hebrew letter that the Mosaic ceremonies 
symbolized or typified the worship of Christ under the 
New Covenant. But these things were "written for our 
admonition." To admonish us of what? Evidently, that 
the thing typified should correspond, in this respect, 
at least, to the type or symbol, viz: that God is pleased 
with our co-operation in the provision he has made for the 
salvation of mankind, by obedience to his commands, 
rather than by contributions to divine wisdom by de- 
vising new schemes and methods for carrying on his 
work. 



-94— M 

Reader, examine the Old Testament ordinances and 
ceremonies, and God's dealing with those into whose 
care and keeping they were committed, and who were 
charged with their execution. Ascertain if you can, 
when, where, and under what circumstances he ever 
approved any addition to that which he had command- 
ed or the introduction into his worship of things which 
he had not authorized. 

Find how many times it is recorded that the doing of 
things which he had not authorized, nor specifically 
forbidden, met with terribly disastrous consequences, 
even where prompted by apparently good motives. 
Then answer the question. Is it safe? If we appeal to, 

3. Unmistakable doctrinal and historical suggestions 
in the New Testament, we are led by their inerrant 
logic to the same conclusion. We have already quoted 
freely from the writings of both the Old and New 
Testaments to show that God's revelation to man is 
perfect or complete. We now add, Psa. 19: 7; 2 Tim. 
3: 16, 17, and 2 Peter 1: 3. Also that Christ directed 
his disciples to t©ach believers to "observe all things 
whatsoever ^^ he hB^d commanded. Matt. 28: 20-27. 

In view of these scriptures^ what intelligent Bible 
student will risk his reputation on the assertion that 
we cannot learn from the scriptures just what God 
would have us do as a part of church work and wor- 
ship, and in the proclamation of the gospel to the un- 
converted? God has told us WHAT he wishes us to do 
both individually and collectively in the work and wor- 
ship which pertain to the assemblies and their mem- 
bers. The recorded history tells us just HOW these 
things were done in the early church under the guid- 
ance of divine inspiration. What more is required to 
constitute a plan or a method? If giving one directions 
WHAT to do, and then showing that one HOW to do 



—95— 

the things directed does not constitute a plan or 
method^ we are at a loss to know what else is required. 
Of course, people contend that changes in times, con- 
ditions and circumstances justify changes from the 
plan and methods approved by God, and then assume 
that they have the wisdom requisite to determine the 
character of the changes and the exigencies which re- 
quire them. These assumptions are not only abso- 
lutely unwarranted by any scripture which even seems 
to sustain them, but they have been the fruitful sources 
of every heresy, schism, and innovation which have 
corrupted God's people from the days of Cain down to 
the present confused and divided condition of Christen- 
dom. How often do we hear it urged that time has 
greatly changed the facilities for travel, communication 
and production; utilities and conveniences have vastly 
increased; long and rapid strides have been made in 
art, science, and the modes of living, and the church 
must keep abreast of the times. That these things afford 
special facilities for the dissemination of religious 
truth, and should be used for that purpose, we have no 
disposition to dispute. They enable us to reach places, 
at times and under circumstances which would be dffli- 
cult if not impossible in their absence. But do increas- 
ed facilities for doing that which is authorized, consti- 
tute a valid reason for doing that which is not authorized? 
All these modern conveniences affect the where and the 
when^ rather than to the what and the how. The im- 
possibility of giving specific directions to each individ- 
ual in the universe as to the exact time and place for 
the performance of each act is too obvious to require 
explanation. The where and the when^ theref orej has 
been left largely to our discretion. That all the modern 
advantages should be used in the line of things com- 
manded, — thus doubling or trippling the result of a 



—96— 

given amount of energy may be readily conceded. To 
claim, however, that they justify us in assuming to do 
in the name of the Master, things which are not even 
named in his revealed will, requires a gross perversion 
of the essential principles of logic. 

Christians are exhorted to '*be always ready to give 
a reason for the hope that is within them. " 1 Peter 
3: 15; and as they ^*may have opportunity "to ^*do good 
unto all men, specially to them who are of the house- 
hold of faith. " Gal. 6: 10. Paul impressed Timothy 
with the importance of being ^Instant in season; out of 
season." These scriptures and many others justify 
us in the use of sound discretion in taking advantage 
of the varying circumstances in proclaiming the gospel 
and exhorting and instructing believers. They furnish 
no authority, however, for the slightest modification or 
change in the teaching or practice of the worshiping 
assemblies, nor for the precept or example of the in- 
dividual in respect thereto. They authorise us to 
seize, — perhaps to make, — opportunities for doing good 
along the lines in joined; but they do not make that good 
which was evil, nor give us liberty to inculcate by either 
precept or exam pie, a faith or a practice not contained 
in the word of God. ''As, therefore, ye have oppor- 
tunity;"— i^^^eret;er and whenever^ not whatever and 
however. So, then it may be said that the where and 
the when are left largely to our discretion: the what and 
the how are given by divine direction. Even the com- 
mand, '*Go into all the world, " etc., pertains rather to 
the ivhere than the what. It relates to the time and place 
of doing gospel work, rather than to the character of 
the work or the method of doing it. It by no means 
follows that because we are allowed a discretion as to 
the time and manner of going to a given place, we are 
at liberty to do what and as we please after our arrival. 



—97- 



CHAPTER XII. 

MODERN INNOVATIONS. 

Time and space forbid our entering into the details 
of the doctrines and practices which serve to distin- 
guish the respective denominations from one another, 
and many, if not all of them, in some respects at least, 
from the church of the New Testament. A few promi- 
nent examples, however, will serve to introduce the in- 
quiry along this line, and the diligent and devout reader 
can readily amplify the list from his own observation, 
if not from his own experience. 

The one great difference between the congregations 
under the guidance of inspired men and the popular 
churches of the present, consists of the fact that the 
apostolic assemblies made no provision for the grati- 
fication of the ambition, avarice and appetite of their 
members. The writer hereof is persuaded that the 
provision made for these, by and in the modern 
churches, has been the fruitful source of corruption 
from which has sprung, either directly or indirectly, 
most of the divergencies from the simplicity ot the 
gospel, as well as the practical and doctrinal differences 
among the sects themselves. The apostolic congrega- 
tions literally fulfilled the injunction of Paul to the 
Roman brethren, '*Make not provision for the flesh, to 
fulfill the lusts (desires) thereof." Rom. 13: 14. How 
important these considerations may be in secular 
matters, and how far we may appeal to and gratify 
these passions in things and enterprises pertaining 
strictly to our temporal welfare, it is no part of this 
work to discuss. It is certain, however, that they had 
no place in the evangelistic, eucharistic, edificatory, or 



—98— 

admonitory work of the early church, nor in any of her 
worshiping assemblies. Their entire absence from 
the appeals made by Christ and his apostles to the 
people, and from their instructive and admonitory 
words to disciples, and from their praise and memor- 
ial services, can hardly have been accidental. How 
many of the schemes, doctrines, and traditions by which 
the people of God are rent into contending and oppos- 
ing factions, and her energies wasted in mutually 
neutralizing enterprises, would survive for a decade if 
these demoralizing factors were all eliminated from the 
spiritual equation? If every assembly of those calling 
themselves Christians would exclude from their meet- 
ings for religious work, worship, and instruction the 
things suggested by ambition, avarice, and appetite, 
there would soon be nothing on which to base differ- 
ences and contentions; a single church would inevitably 
result; all Christians would be its members, its creed 
would be the Bible, while hypocrites, schismatics, de- 
signing men, and all theological acrobats would desert 
her with all the avidity of frightened rodents from an 
impending holocaust. But to enumerate some promi- 
nent points of difference. 

1. The church of apostolic times was not divided into 
opposing and contending factions. It is true that there 
were personal differences; but they nevei* reached the 
organic stage. They were settled by the parties 
thereto, or by the congregations without causing 
schism in the body. Had appeals been made to the 
passions to induce people to unite with the church, and 
to do their duty and keep them content to remain so 
identified schism could not have been prevented. As 
long, however as all earthly considerations and desires 
of the flesh were excluded from her work and worship: 
—as long as it was God's will exclusively, not theirs, 



—99— 

wnich they sought to follow, — as long as they were 
united as the Master prayed, ''even as thou, Father 
and I are one;"(John 17: 11) as long as they were^'per- 
fectly joined together in the same mind and the same 
judgment, " (1 Cor. 1: 10) there was but one church. 
Why will not people do the same to-day? What but 
vanity, ambition, love of applause of money and of 
pleasure, keep the church divided? Is not this your 
observation? yea your experience, if you have any? 
''But, "it is urged, "people can't all see alike." We 
freely admit that they donH all see alike. It is obvious 
that if a proposition is clearly stated^ it will convey 
exactly the same ideas and meaning to all by whom it 
is accurately comprehended. To say that God has not 
stated his will to us with clearness, yet proposes to 
punish us eternally because we do not comprehend it, 
is to charge him with gross injustice. To say that his 
commands are lacking in clearness, yet he requires us 
to "speak the same things," and "be perfectly joined 
together in the same mind and the same judgment" in 
carrying them out, is to place him on an equality with 
a Nero or a Caligula. No, it is for no lack of clearness 
in God's commands. The way he has marked out is so 
plain that even the foolish (unlearned) need not err 
therein. Then man's failure to comprehend accurate- 
ly must be attributed to either his lack of ability or 
his lack of will. But has God given us commands 
which, when clearly expressed, are beyond our ability 
to comprehend? Then he has mocked us and ensnared 
us, and is devoid of justice and benevolence as recog- 
nized and administered by the low standards of human 
reason. Not only so, but he has deceived us, and his 
promise to "put his law in our minds" and "write iton 
our hearts" (understanding), and that "all shall know 
(comprehend) him, from the least unto the greatest" is 



f I _r /N 



—100— 

a delusion and a falsehood. No, my friendly reader, it 
is our obstinacy, not our inability nor God's lack of 
clearness, which prevents our seeing these things alike. 
We will do well to follow the example of the early 
Christians in the perfect unity and freedom from sec- 
tarianism which they maintained. 

2. The church of apostolic times had no auxiliary 
societies, nor appendages to which she farmed out or sub- 
let her privileges, nor by which she performed her devot- 
ions and offered her sacrifices by proxy. 

It had no special club, guild, or society peculiarly 
adapted to the needs, the whims, or the demands of 
the rich, the poor, the old, the young, the learned, 
ignorant, or any other class of the brotherhood. As 
the poor, weak, and unfortunate in body, mind, or 
purse needed the comfort, sustenance and encourage- 
ment of the strong, thrifty and prosperous; so these 
needed objects for their sympathy and bounty,as well as 
examples of patience, humility and devotion so often 
found among the destitute and afflicted. The spirit- 
ually illiterate needed the assistance of the wise; who, 
in turn, needed to extend, as well as tighten their grasp 
on truth as nought can, save the impartation of knowl- 
edge. 

The young needed the wisdom, counsel and experi- 
ence of the old; and they, the zeal, activity and enthu- 
siasm of the young. Hence, in '* their congregational 
capacity alone they moved." The devout and pious 
prosperous were examples of thrift and benevolence; 
the worthy and conscientious afflicted, of patience, 
humility and gratitude. The learned — especially in 
the scriptures— were accurate and exemplary guides; 
the ignorant but honest, were sincere and faithful fol- 
lowers. The elder brethren were exemplars in dis- 
cretion, conservatism and forbearance; the younger in 



—101— 

zealous and enthusiastic obedience. Nov)^ we have 
societies for the old, the young and the middle aged: 
there are committees for this, conventions for that, and 
unions for the other. There are Missionary Societies, 
Temperance Societies, Sewing Societies, Bible 
Societies, Dorcas Societies, Endeavor Societies both 
Junior and Senior, Christian Associations both male 
and female, Bible Unions, Young Peoples Unions, 
Epworth Leagues, Bands of Hope, King's Daughters, 
and so adinfinitum^ with all their official distinctions, posi- 
tions, salaries, perquisites, and special privileges, all 
under the auspices of the church. In some of these 
societies annual and life memberships and director- 
ships may be purchased with money, regardless of the 
manner in which it is earned, and men and women are 
eligible thereto, regardless of their religious convict- 
ions or proclivities. The voice of the Pagan, Moham- 
medan, or infidel director is as potent in shaping the 
policy of the enterprise — directing this division'; of 
the King's army— as that of the most devout and con- 
sistent disciple. 

Judas and Simon Magus would be eligible to mem- 
bership in such a society by reason of their money. 
John 12: 6; Acts 8: 18. Peter and John, and even the 
Master himself would not be so. Matt. 17: 25-27; 
Acts 3: 6. What the exigencies are which the advo- 
cates of these auxiliaries claim to have rendered them 
appropriate, it is not our purpose to discuss. One 
thing is certain: they are no part of the church — the 
body of Christ — for **now hath God set the members, 
every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him, '^ 
(1 Cor. 12: 18), and he has not been pleased to set these 
in as any part thereof. It is also certain that the 
apostles, acting under the direct guidance of Inspira- 
tion, did not regard auxiliary adjuncts and appeu 



—102— 

dages to the church as either necessary or beneficial. 
In fact, if, as has been shown, — God's way "is perfect, " 
there can be no real auxiliaries or helps to the divinely 
prescribed methods, because that which is perfect in 
all its elements cannot have anything either necessary 
or beneficial added thereto. So long as a thing is 
lacking in any necessary or beneficial element it is not 
perfect. 

So then, if God's way is perfect — and the Bible says 
it is — and these things are no part of God's appointed 
way — and the Bible shows that they are not — it is not 
possible that they be either necessary or beneficial to 
the progress of the church. To the proposition that 
they have become expedient by reason of changed con- 
ditions, we answer afc the risk of being charged with 
repetition, that it does not accord with an intelligent 
conception of infinite wisdom, power and goodness to 
approve a plan of carrying on an enterprise without 
making provision for such modifications as changing 
conditions render essential to success. There are 
other questionable features incident to, if not insepa- 
rably connected with the multiplication of these 
societies. 

We will appropriate space to relate a single occur- 
rance illustrative of their tendency. A few years ago 
the writer and his family were the guests of a non- 
religious friend and neighbor at dinner on a summer 
Lord's day. Our host, knowing that it was our invari- 
able practice to attend religious services in the fore- 
noon, and that I taught a Bible class in the afternoon, 
so arranged the dinner hour as not to interfere. At 
noon we went directly from the meeting house to the 
residence of our friend, where we found the other 
guests already assembled, and some of the young folks 
who were members of the congregation where we had 



—103— 

attended, were engaged in a social game of cards. I 
considered that courtesy forbade any suggestion from 
me as to the propriety of devoting the Lord's day to 
amusements; so after dinner I excused myself and met 
with the Bible class as usual, returning to the house of 
my host after the lesson, where these young members 
were still enjoying their game. About 6 o'clock p. m., 
at the sound of the city church bells, all these young 
people hastily bunched their cards without even wait- 
ing to play out the hand, and began preparation for an 
immediate departure. I considered this to be my op- 
portunity, and, although I well knew the cause, I 
ventured to inquire the reason for thus abruptly 
abandoning so pleasant a pastime. '*0h!" said they, 
*^this is the first bell for our Young People's Society 
meeting." **But," I interrupted, '*is this particular 
meeting so important as to require such a sudden 
desertion of such congenial company and pleasing 
entertainment?" To this they answered, ''We have 
given a solemn pledge to attend these meetings, and 
we could not think of disregarding our pledge. ' ' * 'But, ' ' 
I insisted, I did not see you at the meeting house this 
morning; did not your obligation to wait on the Lord in 
all his appointments require your presence there?" 
'*You were not at the Bible class where you might have 
learned much from the men and women of age and ex- 
perience," etc. We forbear to pursue the colloquy 
further. Here the young people and their parents, 
members of one of the orthodox (?) churches of the city, 
took their departure, doubtless innocent of any sus- 
picion that they were giving a man-made institution 
precedence in their affections and obligations, over the 

** Church our blest Redeemer saved, 
With his own precious blood," 



—104— 

Yet these people concede — in theory, at least — that 
God's way is superior to man's, and that the church is 
"the pillar and ground of the truth. " Doubtless they 
would bitterly resent the charge of subordinating her 
claims to those of any humanly devised institution 
which dares not emphasize the importance of Chris- 
tian unity on exclusively Bible grounds. 

Reader, if you suspect that I have overstated the 
case, attend one of the union meetings of one of these 
societies. Without letting any one know your purpose, 
endeavor to get them to state, or to permit you to state 
on purely Bible authority just what God desires to be 
done by the sinner or unbeliever in order to his con- 
version, or by the believer in order to develope his 
Christian character. We confidently predict that you 
will conclude our statement to fall short of, rather than 
to go beyond the truth. 

Alas! how utterly impossible it is for the recently re- 
cruited "soldier of the cross, " of tender years and ex- 
perience, to attain sufficient strength, individuality and 
endurance to effectually wield the "sword of the Spirit, " 
"run with patience the race, "or "fight the good fight," 
on the nourishment drawn from this pre-arranged, 
pre-diluted, pre- masticated, and pre digested spiritual 
food. When we attend a general or national meeting 
of these confederated societies, see the display of par- 
liamentary and oratorical talent, admire the costly 
apparel and personal charms of those conspicuous in 
the work, hear the liberal contributors praised to ex- 
travagance, and the ridicule of those who from inability 
or indisposition are not so liberal; when we are brought 
face to face with the strife for positions and perquisites, 
the small-talk, not to say frivolity, and coquetry — inci- 
dent to the free commingling of the sexes— in view of 
all these can it be said that ambitionj avarice and appe- 



—105— 

tite, vanity, carnality, and love of applause are not 
potent, if not controlling factors in this equation, from 
which they were entirely eliminated among the con- 
gregations of apostolic times? 

3. The congregations of apostolic times erected no mas- 
sive or expensive cathedrals^ nor adorned them with costly 
and elaborate furnishings. 

What is ever accomplished by the dedication of im- 
posing and majestic piles of masonry to denominational 
worship save the gratification of human pride and the 
excitement of human envy? Are they not monuments 
of vanity? yea, and of cruelty, when the means for their 
construction are wrung from the poor and oppressed 
and the means for their maintenance extorted from 
the hovels of squalor by law, priestcraft, or a morbid 
public sentiment? 

It is said that in a certain city there is a magnificent 
structure, erected at a cost of near half a million. The 
salary of the Pastor is up into the tens of thousands, 
and that of its chorister into the tens of hundreds. 
Everything connected therewith is so grand and gor- 
geous that a person in neat but plain apparel becomes 
painfully conspicuous. Within a few blocks, in a 
dilapidated building, is what is sometimes called a 
mission service, where the destitute and unfortunate 
are instructed, admonished and encouraged by an 

I humble disciple without salary. The attire which 
would render one conspicuous by reason of its plain 
ness in the costly building, would here be so on ac- 
count of its superiority over the average attendant. On 

j what common ground are these two congregations to 
meet? What is the practical basis for unity and com- 

\ unity, co-operation and fellowship between them? 

: It is doubtless true that many of the poor and desti- 
tute are so of their own fault. Their condition being 



—106— 






due to their own thrif tlessness, profligacy, and per- 
haps vice, it is possible that they have to some extent 
forfeited their claim on our sympathy. But there are 
surely some who are victims of circumstances beyond 
their control. They suffer the galling bonds of desti- 
tute affliction without murmuring or deviating from 
the path of rectitude to man or fidelity to God. Who 
dare raise the insurmountable barrier, or flood the im- 
passable gulf of non-fellowship, non-co-operation, non- 
brother-hood between them and the most favored of 
God's creatures in body, brain or mammon? Brethren, 
beware! 

4. The church of apostolic times did not import clergymen 
to preside over them and monopolize the functions of in- 
struction and admonition. 

They rather prepared men for the work of proclaim- 
ing the good news, and sent them to such as had never 
heard the gospel. By far the greater part of the finan- 
cial energy of the average modern congregation is ex- 
pended in procuring the services of the finished rhet- 
orician who can prepare, not only the ' 'sincere milk of 
the word," but the more substantial elements of 
spiritual nutrition in such a manner that they will be 
pleasing to the morbid palates of his dyspeptic flock, 
if not strengthening to their atrophied spirits; and 
through whom they can '^offer their sacrifice of praise 
to God" by proxy. 

The time of the average modern professor of religion 
issooccupied in thepursuitof honor, wealthand pleasure 
(ambition, avarice and appetite) that little is left fer a 
close, patient and critical study of God's word. Hence, 
the imported clergyman to study, digest and interpret 
the Scriptures for him. The numerous and fiourishing 
branches of this innovation upon the apostolic order of 
procedure may be traced almost ad infinitum. 



—107— 



CHAPTER XIII. 

OPERATIC AND ELOCUTIONARY HIRELINGS. 

5. Those who served the apostolic congregations neither 
demanded nor received definite nor exorbitant salaries 
for their services in proclaiming the gospel or instructing 
the assemblies. 

That modern clerisy, with all its distinctions, ap- 
pendages, privileges, perquisites and prerogatives, 
was contemplated by those who established the primi- 
tive order, probably no intelligent Bible student will 
venture to affirm. 

That the scriptures furnish either precept or exam- 
ple for an agreement between pastor and flock for a 
given number of sermons, or a definite period of time 
devoted to teaching, in consideration of a certain sum 
of money, will hardly be asserted by the boldest advo- 
cate of modern methods for accumulating sustenance 
for this latter day priesthood. Paul, in his address to 
the overseers of the church at Ephesus, recorded in 
Acts 20: 33-35, uses the following language: *'I have 
coveted no man's gold, silver or apparel. Yea, ye your- 
selves know that these hands have ministered to the 
necessities of myself and them that are with me. I 
have showed you how that laboring you ought to sup- 
port the weak, and remember the words of the Lord 
Jesus, how he said, **It is more blessed to give than to 
receive. " Let it be observed that the word rendered 
covet is notpleonectien or its co-relative noun, pleonectes^ 
which carry the idea of a wrongful or over-reaching de- 
sire, as in 1 Cor. 5: 10, 11; 6: 10; 2 Cor. 2: 11; 7: 2; 12: 17; 
Eph. 5: 5. The word rendered covet in Paul's speech 
to the Ephesian brethren is epethumesa from epethw 



—108— 

meo^ to desire lawfully or appropriately. It is the same 
word used by the Master in Luke 22: 15 where he is 
represented as saying to his disciples, *'With desire 
have I desired [epethiiraia epethumesa] to eat this pass- 
over with you before I suffer. " I 
Thus it will be seen that the great apostle of the 
Gentiles was not only guiltless of an unlawful or 
wrongful desire for the substance of these Ephesian 
brethren, but he asserts that he had not even a right- 
ful or commendable desire to obtain their goods or any 
part of them as compensation for the spiritual service 
he had rendered them. If we turn to the la st chapter 
of the second Thessalonian letter, we find this view 
strongly corroborated. After earnestly admonishing 
the brethren against disorderly conduct, he continues, 
««Por ye yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: 
for we behaved ourselves not disorderly among you; 
neither did we eat any man's bread for nought, but 
wrought with labor [to the point of weariness] night 
and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of 
you: not because we have not the power, [authority, 
Gr. exousian^ not dunamin] but to make ourselves an 
example unto you to follow us." By reference to the 
10th verse of the same chapter it will be seen that he 
did not excuse the preachers from the obligation of 
laboring for their bread, as he seems to include him- 
self in the class of those among whom ' ^if any would 
not work, neither should he eat." Brethren will 
doubtless have noticed that while sermons are often 
preached from this 20th chapter of Acts, that part 
which we have quoted is rarely, if ever made the basis 
for a discourse. So also with the scripture cited from 
the Thessalonian letter: we have never heard it com- 
mented on, or even quoted in a public assembly, 
though in the 14th verse the apostle seems to have 



—109— 

made obedience to the things set f oriH in this chapter 
a test of fellowship* ^'Aud ii any man obey not our 
word by this epistle, note that man and have no com- 
pany with him." If all should be withdrawn from at 
this day who do not obey these injunctions of the apos- 
tle, we fear the ranks of the Master's army would be 
materially decimated. 

**But,"itis urged, "times have changed, and it 
would be impossible for the gospel preacher to live in 
the style enabling him to exert a powerful influence 
on the community in which he labors if restricted to 
the methods and manner of living in apostolic times." 
Viewed from the standpoint of human wisdom and 
expediency, there appears to be much force in the ob- 
jection. But in what consists the change which has 
rendered it necessary to make a commercial trans- 
action out of the dissemination of Bible truth? It is 
self evident that if the members of the congregations 
contributed of their free will a sufl&cient amount of 
their substance to meet all the real wants of those who 
labor in word and doctrine, and those who serve thus 
ask no more, no reason would exist for resorting to 
questionable means or appeals to stimulate the liber- 
ality of the brethren. It is likewise evident that the 
change which has rendered necessary the hireling 
system in gospel teaching has been, either that the 
servants of the congregations demand more than is re- 
quisite for an appropriate sustenance, or the members 
contribute Zess, if left to their own volition, and without 
any impulsion save their devotion to the cause. These 
things are within the church, and it is clearly her duty 
to correct themj or the one of them to which this un- 
scriptural condition is justly chargeable. A large 
number of the congregations are manifestly making 
no effort to correct this evil, but apparently do all in 



-110- 

their power to perptJiAiatG it and facilitate its growth. 
And sOj the hireling system, charaotorized by the 
Master as corrupting and detrimental to the interests 
ol his church, exists in reality in a large number of 
orthodox (so called) congregationSj and in appearance, 
at least, in nearly all, so far as our observation extends. 
John 10: 12, 13, This distressing condition is caused 
directly by the pride, lust and covetousness, (ambition, 
avarice and appetite) of those who should be either the 
donors or the beneficiaries of the bounty of the con- 
gregations. According to the injunction of the apostle 
contained in 1 Thes. 5: 22, this evil ought to be correct- 
ed, whether it exists in/act^ or only in appearance. 

But it is objected, Are we not taught that "they 
that preach the gospel shall live of the gospel?" 1 Cor. 
9: 14. Undoubtedly we are; but in order to live of the 
gospel is it necessary to make the preacher a hireling? 
Your family live 0/ your earnings, doubtless; but do 
you make a definite bargain with each one in which a 
certain amount of companionship is exchanged for a 
certain amount of the necessities of life? Do you assess 
the value of your fatherly care and oversight, — your 
parental solicitude, your anxious and sleepless nights 
spent at the bedside of each one, and render them all 
into separate and several accounts, and require pay- 
ment or security in order to be assured of a contin- 
uance? Are all your tender ministrations of love to 
your family weighed in the hair-scales of human sel- 
fishness, in order that a rigid equivalent may be 
exacted in financial units? Our obligation to sustain 
those who are required to devote their entire time to 
laboring in word and doctrine by no means involves 
the apportionment to each act or period of time an ap- 
propriate monetary equivalent. Devoted and affection- 
ate children have often taken care of their aged and 



— Ill— 

decrepit parents and been abundantly compensated 
therefor without having driven a hard or definite bar- 
gain, and without any hint or intimation of what would 
be given or expected. We would greatly prefer being 
cared for, a public expense at a common alms-house, 
than to be compelled to make a definite iron-clad 
bargain with our children for their assistance and 
companionship. Is the claim of the Master on your 
bounty less sacred or weighty than those of parents or 
children? If the brethren refuse to contribute a suffi- 
ciency to the support of such servants of the church as 
are required to devote their time to the ministry of the 
word without being impelled thereto by a definite 
bargain or contract which they have been flattered, 
cajoled, coaxed, threatened, or ridiculed into making, 
the church is sadly wrong; if the preacher will not pro- 
claim the gospel to sinners nor giye instruction and 
admonition to saints without a lawful contract first 
signed, sealed and delivered, to pay him so much 
money, he is woefully wrong, and the sooner they both 
return to Scripture methods and Scripture principles 
the better. 

It is useless to attempt a justification of this system 
by saying that men will not be affected in their con- 
duct by these lucrative considerations, but will sub- 
ordinate the temporal to the spiritual motive. Why 
appeal to the financial motive if we do not expect it to 
be heeded? We m ust not be surprised if men acquiesce 
in a motive to which we constantly appeal with pre- 
dominating emphasis. It is a fact universally recog- 
nized that financial interest is very potent in controll- 
ing our judgment; and where sustained by the tradi- 
tions and prejudices of a lifetime, its conclusions be- 
come difficult, if not well nigh impossible to set aside. 
How readily we yield to the seductive influences of 



I 



—112- 

that logic whose conclusions bring gratification to our 
ambition, avarice and appetite, infinite wisdom alone 
can answer. 

Who can say how far heresies, false doctrines and 
unscriptural practices in modern congregations have 
been due to prejudices, traditions, vanity, cupidity and 
ambition of even honest religious teachers? A calm 
and impartial survey of the religious, political and 
commercial world will convince the candid observer 
of the potency of pecuniary interests in magnifiying 
the virtues and minimizing the vices of popular enter- 
prises. To separate a man from theories inherited 
from the fathers, endeared by years of loyal adhesion, 
and which enable him to obtain sumptuous living for 
himself and family at a very moderate expenditure of 
mental and physical energy, is an exceedingly difficult 
undertaking. Ambition, avarice and appetite all con- 
spire to hide from even the most honest and upright 
religious teachers and leaders all truth which does not 
come to them through approved party channels, and 
which cannot be made to do service to us by the use of 
approved denominational machinery. We see this 
clearly in our opponents, and they see it very clearly in 
us; but few of us see it, or want to see it in ot^rselves, 
our party or our church. It was the treasurer of the 
little band of disciples, — he who carried the bag, — 
handled the money, — who betrayed the Master. The 
first "church scandal" on record was caused by the 
disciples undertaking to administer the bounty of 
those who "sold their possessions," and devoted the 
proceeds to the struggling cause. Acts 5: 1-10. Had 
some one objected to the "community of goods" prior 
to the peculiar death of that avaricious disciple and his 
mendacious wife, it is quite probable that they would 
have been answered with the same excuse made by 



—113— 

modern innovators for their unscriptural schemes, 
viz: *'we can see no harm in them." i 

Can the church safely enter into competition with the 
world in devising schemes for accumulating, disbur- 
sing and enjoying wealth? In the promiscuous com- 
mingling of motives and inducements is not the 
carnal liable to predominate over the moral and spirit- 
ual? Under the prevailing commercial system of em- 
ployment may we not expect men to take clerical 
orders from other than the highest and purest consid- 
erations? and having done so will they not be controlled 
thereby? Will not such naturally seek for the positions 
yielding the best salaries, the most desirable locations, 
social privileges, and the highest honors? To enhance 
these, will they not resort to unscriptural, if not un- 
fair, means in order to stimulate the zeal and liberality 
of their congregations? Zeal and liberality are both 
commendable, but the example of both the Master and 
his disciples might set some limit to that peculiar 
phase which manifests itself in wringing the pittances 
from the oppressed, and the pennies from the children, 
to create a fund from which to draw liberal salaries. 
That the modern clergy, composed of men who follow 
preaching as a profession, for the purpose of earning 
money with which to provide sumptuous living for 
themselves and families was ever contemplated in the 
New Testament economy, is unsupported by a single 
precept, example or inference to be found therein or de- 
ducted therefrom. But you say that the salary is but 
an incident, and not inducement for which this sacred 
calling is entered. Be it so; then it is a very potent 
incident for preventing the ranks of the clergy from 
becoming fearfully and rapidly decimated. 



—114— 

6. The church of apostolic times employed neither selec 
choirs^ salaried singers nor instrumental music in the 
worshipping assemblies. 

It is not our purpose to discuss at length the various 
questions which migh arise under this proposition. Ai 
few fundamental principles, however, underlying the 
subject, are deemed appropriate to be considered at 
this time and place because they seem to the writer so 
clear, and deviations therefrom appear to be so readily 
discerned. The Scriptures teach that singing is an 
act of worship. Prom a number of passages with 
which the Bible student is doubtless familiar, we learn 
that the disciples of the early church engaged in sing- 
ing for the purpose of praise, thanksgiving, supplica- 
tion, admonition and instruction. Acts 16: 25; Eph. 5 
19; Col. 3: 16. That vocal music was ever used to at- 
tract a curious crowd, to entertain an audience, as 
medium of displaying talent, or of earning money, or 
that instrumental music was ever used at all, neither| 
appears by direction or inference in the entire Ne 
Testament. 

Why, then, should the church of the present time in 
troduce means, adopt methods, appeal to motives, or 
dain rites, institute ceremonies, and offer sacrifices 
which were not recognized as appropriate by the apos- 
tles under the guidance of divine inspiration? Are not 
these things addressed largely to the desire to excel 
and to gain money and applause, and to display the tal- 
ents of the performers; and to please the ears and eyes 
of the people? Are they not thus appeals to the pas- 
sions above named as having no place in the worship- 
ping assemblies of the early church? We all know how 
difficult it is to control these passions, even when re- 
stricted to secular affairs; yet we bring them into the 
p^ssemblies of worshipping Christians as attractions 



—115— 

and entertainments tending to increase the member- 
ship by appeals to the lust, rather than to the reason 
ot the hearers. They unite with the congregations 
from prudential, rather than devotional considerations, 
and though ignorant of principles and innocent of con- 
victions, their voice is as potent in shaping the policy 
of the church as that of the most devout and learned in 
the Bible. Even though they be innocent of wrong in- 
tent, their influence is as apt to be exerted to mis-shape 
and misdirect the policy and energies of the church as 
to give her the right trend. Those unacquainted with 
the teachings of the Bible will be apt to exert their in- 
fluence in favor of what they want^ rather than what 
God has authorized. We believe that no Bible scholar 
of reputation will afl&rm the necessity of either the 
hireling, the select choir or the musical instrument,for 
the attainment of any of the objects which the New 
Testament requires or authorizes to be accomplished 
by music. That the songs as well as the prayers 
should be rendered in such language as may be easily 
understood, even by those who do not participate there- 
in, is clearly taught by the apostle Paul. 1 Cor. 14: 15, 
16. That the elocutionary, the ostentatious, the oper- 
atic, and other sensational features of music were eyer 
encouraged in the early church, appears neither from 
sacred nor profane history. Now they are emphasized 
in many of the fashionable churches at the expense, if 
not to the exclusion of the eucharistic, didactic, and 
admonitory effect of this very important branch of the 
worship. It is a fact too well known to be denied, and 
is not even apologized for, that between the skilful ma- 
nipulation of the basso profundo of the grand organ, 
the bewitching tones of the orchestra, and the tremelo , 
vibrations of the soprano oNigato, not one word of the 
sense or sentiment of the song itself can be heard. 



—lie- 
Here then is one element of the worship, made prom- 
inent in the days of the early church, intended to be 
engaged in by all God's children, for their mutual edi- 
fication, praise, thanksgiving, and supplication; but the 
purposes for which it was ordained have, in many in- 
stances been entirely subordinated to motives and de- 
sires wholly unknown to the N. T. Brethren, friends, 
devout men and women of the fashionable congrega- 
tions, — you who doubtlessly, honestly, but unadvisedly 
worship '^after the doctrines and traditions of men," — 
have we overdrawn the picture? You well know we 
have not. You who advocate such innovations erect an 
insuperable barrier of non-co-operation, non-participa- 
tion, and hence, non-fellowship against all who are op- 
posed there-to from conviction, no matter how humble, 
devout or upright they may be, nor how loyal to him 
whom we all recognize as our common Master, 

Some one is probably now ready with the old and 
threadbare excuse, * 'There can be no harm in making 
the music attractive to the ear, " etc. Then there can 
be no harm in making the place attractive to the eye: 
therefore arrange for fine paintings, sculpture, and 
panoramic views, on which we may look during the 
service. There can be no harm in making the sacra- 
mental elements attractive to the taste; and the Script- 
ures nowhere prescribe quantity nor quality: there- 
fore let them be such as to fully satiate the appetite 
and tickle the palate of the most ardent epicure. There 
can be no harm in making the occasion attractive to 
the touch or feeling: therefore provide instruments of 
bodily pleasure, athletic appliances, baths, etc. What 
is more refreshing than a generous bath when the 
roads are dusty and the heat oppressive? and cleanli- 
ness is enjoined by the Scriptures. There can be no 
harm in making things pleasant to the smell; so let the 



—117— 

church provide incense to be burned for the delectation 
of all. David did so, and does not the Scriptures say 
that he "was a man after God's own heart"? In addi- 
tion, let each member provide a special perfume for 
his own use, and suited to his or her individual taste, 
regardless of its being offensive to others; for thus it 
is with the instrumental music. Such as become nau- 
seated may worship elsewhere. 

There can be no more harm in making things pleas- 
ant for the mind than for the body; therefore provide 
games and amusements of different kinds as a recrea- 
tion or relaxation for such as do not find it agreeable 
to concentrate their minds on the sermon and services 
during the time requisite for their rendition. 

Now, brethren, what is the logical objection to pro- 
cedure in the line suggested? Simply that it consti- 
tutes what the apostle calls will, worship. Col. 2: 
18-23. It is following our own wills instead of 
God^s. It is substituting our own carnal desires for 
God's revelation, as the standard of worshipping in 
the assemblies. As wills and tastes differ according 
to education, temperament, environment, mental ac- 
tivity, health, acquired preferences, and perhaps other 
considerations, so the standards of doctrine, discipline 
and practice must vary ; and hence divisions and offenses 
"contrary to the doctrine of Christ. " 

But it is urged that David enjoined the praising of 
God '^with the harp and with the organ. " Yes, and he 
enjoined the praising of him with the timbrel and the 
dance. To be consistent in the use of this argument, 
introduce into the worshipping assembUes the *'01d 
Virginia reel, " the waltz and the two-step. They are 
sustained by the same argument, viz., making the ser- 
vices attractive, and are justified by the same author- 
ity, viz., the precept of David, contained in the same 



—US- 
chapter and verse. Ps. 150: 4. Is it contended that 
the dance is diflEerent from that used in the time of Da- 
vid? So is the harp and the organ. Even if they were 
both identical, however, that would constitute no iusti- 
flcation, for we are not under the authority of David, 
but that of Christ, which differs therefrom in several 
important particulars. 

Both the precept and example of David are directly 
opposed to the teachings of the New Testament in 
many respects. David had a plurality of wives, which 
is forbidden by Christ, he declaring that it was never 
approved, but rather permitted by God. David prayed 
for the utter destruction of his enemies, and a denial 
of any mercy, even to their children. Ps. 109: 5-20. 
This is violently opposed to both the teaching and ex- 
ample of Christ and his apostles. Matt. 5: 48, 44; Rom, 
12:19,20. Even if it were shown that God ordained 
instrumental music as a part of the Old Testament cer- 
emonies, it would not follow that it should be used un- 
der the New. Circumcision was an essential feature un- 
der the Old covenant, but to practice it under the New 
renders the atonement of ''no effect" to us. Gal. 5: 2- 
4. What, then is the basis for the conclusion that God 
is pleased with the organ, fiddle, piano, horn, operatic 
salaried singer, select choir distinct from the rest of 
the congregation, etc., etc.? Such a conclusion rests 
on the baldest and barest presumption. How well God 
is pleased with our presuming to add some feature to 
the worship which he has not seen fit to prescribe, we 
may learn from Deut. 18: 20; Ps. 19: 13;Prov. 30: 6. 



—119— 
CHAPTER XIV. 

WEEKLY ASSEMBLAGES AND MANNER 
OF CONTRIBUTING. 

7. The apostolic congregation gave no fairs^ festivals^ 
exhibitions or entertainments; nor flattered^ coaxed^ 
threatened or cajoled believers and unbelievers indiscrim- 
inately^ in order to raise the means to defray the expenses 
incident to her work. 

The apostles acting under the direct inspiration of 
God, devised but one scheme for raising the means for 
the sustenance of its worthy beneficiaries, whether 
preaching brethren or indigent laymen. The cheerful 
and unconstrained free-will offering of the brethren and 
sisters was usually made on the first day of the week, 
on the occasion of the meeting for the breaking of the 
commemorative loaf; and, so far as we are informed, 
was never sought to be augmented by the persistent 
importunity of those who were to be the recipients 
thereof. The amount of each respective contribution 
was left solely to the generosity of the giver, to be de- 
termined by him from the success or prosperity of his 
efforts and undertakings preceding, the exigencies of 
the congregation and its members, and his own devo- 
tion to the cause. Acts 20: 7; 1 Cor. 16: 1, 2; 2 Cor. 9: 
5-7. This approved scheme for supplying the Lord's 
treasury with funds seems to have fallen into what one 
of our prominent rulers was pleased to call innocuous 
dest^e^itde, " and the name of its successors is Legion^ 
for they are many. Mark 5: 9. Human ingenuity 
seems to have been taxed to its utmost in devising plans 
for purifying the pockets, if not the hearts, of both 
saint and sinner by extracting therefrom the ^'utmost 
farthing" of **filthy lucre" which they can be made to 



—120— 

yield by appeaKng to ambition, avarice and appetite, — 
the use of flattery, ridicule and persuasion. Is man's 
way superior to God's? If not why this radical de- 
parture from the method pursued by the apostles? Are 
the demands of the clergy greater than they ought to 
be, or the voluntary bounty of God's people less? So 
complete a change from the New Testament plan of se- 
curing means for carrying forward the gospel work 
must be due to some reason of which his people ought 
not to be ashamed. In the matter of alms-giving the 
injunctionof the Master was, **Let not thy left hand 
know what thy right hand doeth, " but that * 'thine alms 
may be in secret." Matt. 6: 1-4. Now, the injunction 
is "Let thine alms be public; proclaim them on the 
house-tops and publish them in the streets and assem- 
blies, yea and in the newspapers, that others seeing 
your good works, may be constrained to "devote a large 
part of their substance to the sumptuous fare of the 
clergy." The apostle exhorted the Roman brethren, 
"Let him that give th do so with simplicity." Rom. 
12: 8. Nov^i the vule IB not simplicity J but complexity; 
and the more complex the better. Divide the demands 
into many heads and sub-heads: ask a little under each 
and ask frequently and persistently. A small demand 
will not be so strenuously resisted, even if deemed un- 
just. The rich and vain are humored, flattered and 
feasted; the close fisted nagged and coaxed; the poor 
cajoled and ridiculed. Those who contribute liberally 
to all church enterprises without asking any questions 
and regardless of their kind and character are reward- 
ed by having their ambition gratified and receiving 
practical social absolution from their respectable vices. 
Such as refuse to donate to any except scriptural enter- 
prises, or otherwise than in a scriptural manner are 
given to understand that they are regarded as narrow, 



^121— 

stoical and pessimistic, even though they be among the 
most devout and upright of the disciples. Why this un- 
scriptural, or rather, anti-scriptural publicity in alms- 
giving, and complexity in the schemes for augmenting 
the contributions? It was not so in the early church, 
and was positively forbidden by the Master and the 
great apostle of the Gentiles. Is it not because man's 
wisdom has been substituted for God's, and it is now 
deemed necessary to appeal to the ambition, avarice 
and appetite of the members in order to succeed? 
Verily, the moneychangers and venders of merchan- 
dise have taken possession of the modern Temples of 
Worship. 

8. The congregations of the early church did not post- 
pone, or ^forsake the assembling of^ themselves till the 
services of a clergymaii could he procured for the purpoes 
of instructing or entertaining them. 

Prom many scriptures which might be cited it is fairly 
inferrable that the primary purpose of the disciples in 
meeting together was not to hear an ornate homily from 
from someeminent theologidn. We learn from Acts 20:7 
that on the^^first day of the week "the '^disciples came to- 
gether to break bread" (the commemorative loaf). 
Though Paul, perhaps the most gifted speaker of his 
time, was present, there is no hint that the purpose of 
the meeting was to "hear him preach. " Paul exhorted 
the Corinthian brethren to make their free-will offer- 
ings on the first day of the (probably each) week, giving 
as a reason '^that there be no gatherings when I come. " 
Nowaday, the plan would be to reverse this order. 
Wait the coming of the big preacher, get a great crowd 
together, provide means for displaying the vanity of 
all; give the vocal and instrumental musicians oppor- 
tunity for showing their skill, the social butterflies for 
exhibiting their charms, the rich to display 3 their 



—122- 



1 



wealth, and the poor their self denial in giving; use 
every conceivable leverage to relax their purse-strings, 
and while intoxicated with the exhuberance to their 
own vanity extract the last available penny. Then pub- 
blish far and wide the praises of the manipulators of 
the scheme for their skill in raising so large a fund 
**/or the Lord.^^ By Paul's method, a scene of this kind 
is obviated. The liberality of the disciples being 
gathered unostentatiously in their quiet Lord's day 
meetings, no occasion is left for these public appeals to 
the lower motives of the members. In order to have 
made the collection on the first day of the week, it was 
necessary for them to have assembled on that day, but 
nothing is said about their being assembled to hear a 
sermon. 1 Cor. 16: 2. InHeb. 10: 25 the admonition 
is, **Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together 
as the manner of some is, " etc. The day of Pentecost, 
likewise, was the first day of the week, at which time it 
is said that ''they continued steadfastly in the apostles 
doctrine and in the fellowship (Gr, Jcoinonia^ contribu- 
tion), and in the breaking of bread, and in prayers." 
From these scriptures the inference is strong if not 
conclusive that the primary purpose of assembling on 
the first day of the week was not that of hearing an 
entertaining discourse. It appears to have been for 
prayer, praise, instruction, admonition, and contribu- 
tion for benevolent purposes; but chiefly to commemo- 
rate the Lord's suffering and death. But some one 
may ask, ''Did they do this eve^^y Lord's day? We be- 
lieve there is no scripture which so states, totidem 
verbis. The fourth command of the decalogue does not 
specify every sabbath. The statute of the State of 
Indiana now before me is in the following language, to 
wit: "The following days, to wit: the first day of the 
week, commonly called Sunday, the first day of Jan- 



—128— ^ 

uary, commonly called New Years day, the fourth day 
of July," etc., "shall be holidays" for certain purposes 
therein set forth. It does not say every fourth of July 
or the fourth day of every July, yet who will say that 
the reason for observing one does not apply with equal 
force to the observance of each of the others? 

Much more might be said from the standpoint of 
human inference and reason on this branch of the sub- 
ject in hand. We are not however, attempting to settle 
these questions in the light of human discretion or ex- 
pediency. If it can be ascertained what was the idea 
in the minds of inspired men, which they intended to 
convey, while speaking or writing as "the Spirit gave 
them utterance, " it will be sufficient for us. Prom both 
the text and the context we are led to infer that the 
observance of one Lord's day is of as much importance 
as another. If the contrary can be shown, we shall be 
much pleased to consider which of these days should be 
set apart and observed in a special manner. Otherwise 
we deem it both safe and pleasant to observe each re- 
curring Lord's day by commemorating his death, if 
practicable. 

9. The Apostolic Churches endowed no colleges^ semi- 
naries nor universities for the purpose of matricu- 
lating or graduating professional theologues. 

We have no doubt that much moral, religious and 
scientific truth is imparted and acquired in the theo- 
logical schools of modern times. Doubtless the average 
mind is prepared by discipline and rational habits for 
the acquisition of much more. But can it be truthfully 
said that no moral or religious error is acquired in these 
institutions? Are they all right, notwithstanding 
the direct and irreconcilable conflict in the theories, 
doctrines and conclusions insisted on by the various 
professors? Do not the teachers in these institutions 



—124— 

seek to hide from their pupils all facts and truths 
which do not coincide with the tenets of their respect- 
ive sects? Where is the theological school conducted 
by and in the interest of immersionist denominations, 
in which the affusionist or paido- baptist can have a fair, 
respectful and attentive hearing? Where the institu- 
tion conducted by affusionists where care is taken that 
the students are well informed as to the strong points 
on the opposite side of the question? Is it not true 
that convictions become so fixed by sectarian influences 
in these institutions during youth as to be almost be- 
yond the reach of reason? Can the Christian world ever 
become united as the Master so earnestly prayed while 
these institutions are arrayed in diametric opposition 
to one another, and each laboring to so fix its peculiar 
sectarian doctrines in the minds of its students 
as to be beyond the power of logic to dislodge? Teach- 
ers of the Romish or Catholic church say that if they 
can have the religious care and training of the child up 
to its tenth or twelfth year, its denominational tenden- 
cies will have become so fixed that the probability of a 
change will be exceedingly remote. The tendency to 
make ruts or indentations along lines of frequent 
motion is, by no means, confined to things physical. 
That there is a kind of mental, moral, and spiritual 
erosion which causes us to settle deeper and deeper 
into channels of constant thought, will hardly be de- 
nied. "As a man thinketh, — so is he, " expresses much 
truth. Thought is the precursor of all desire, and de- 
sire is the foundation of action. Continued thought and 
consequent action along a given line will ripen into 
habit; and what is a man but the sum of his habits? It 
is therefore, by a perfectly natural and causative pro- 
cess that the graduate of a denominational school be- 
comes an obstinate sectarian. The institution starts 



1 



—125— 

him moving in a sectarian rut or groove which he rarely 
leaves after graduating, but continues to move therein, 
continuing to deepen, but rarely to broaden the channel. 
The simple assumption that his party or sect possesses 
all the truth which is worth elaborating, prevents his 
looking beyond, hence he condemns, without examina- 
tion all other moral and spiritual truth. His denomi- 
national school cannot afford to admit the existence of 
important truth not embraced in her curriculum, and 
to encourage investigation along other or opposing 
lines might suggest their importance and lead to their 
acceptance. We do not wish to be understood as under- 
rating the value of education; too painfully are we 
aware of our deficiency in this direction. 

We all need preparation for meeting the emergencies 
of life with clear heads, brave hearts, strong wills 
ready hands and pure motives, and nought save a 
practical education can do this. But can the sincere 
disciple afford to wilfully close his eyes to any part "" of 
the truth — spiritual truth? If so what part? Can he 
afford to imbibe any religious error? If so how much? 

Where is the theological school in which all the truth 
concerning man's duty to God is taught unmixed with 
error? It has been said that all teach substantially the 
truth. But might we not as well say that all astrono- 
mers teach substantially the truth in regard to eclipses, 
while no two assign the same time for their occur- 
rence? Or that all the charts and maps of different 
authors were correct, though no two gave, even ap- 
proximately, the same distance or direction between 
given points? The early Christians sought the truth, 
— perhaps all the truth pertaining to their duty to God 
and their fellow men, but they never subjected them- 
selves to the control of any institution which suppress- 
ed such truth and advocated such error as appeared 



—126- 

conducive to its monetary interests, no matter how 
honest might have been its teachers in pursuing such 
a course. 

Reader, does it occur to you that our strictures on 
these theological institutions are rather severe? If so 
we suggest three modes of testing the question, viz: 
1. Attend a union meeting of all the orthodox denomi- 
nations conducted by one or more of the noted evangel- 
ists of the day, assisted by the pastors of the different 
churches. Ask them to agree on a statement of what is 
required of an alien sinner in order to become a Chris- 
tian. 2. Write a personal letter to the several profes- 
sors of theology in the various denominational col- 
leges, seeking the same information or, 3. Attend a 
general conference, convention or assembly of the dif- 
ferent denominations, and consider their action in 
changing, repealing, substituting and modifying the 
various parts, phrases, and sections of their creeds, 
articles, and confessions. If these instruments con- 
tain all *^that pertains to life and Godliness," and no 
more, why change or modify them at all? If not, our 
case against them is made out completely. Even while 
we write these lines, in one of the oldest, most intelli- 
gent, and most conservative of the denominations, — 
one for which from childhood I have cherished a pro- 
found regard; — yea, even at this day, is being con- 
templated a dis-avowal of one of its doctrines hallowed 
by time, thereby threatening to sweep this people as- 
tride the line which separates Calvinism from Armini- 
anism. 

So far as we are informed, the protestant sects all 
disclaim infallibility, and indignantly resent the claims 
of Mother Rome thereto; yet, with a zeal and obstinacy 
worthy of an absolutely infallible cause they persist in 
waging among themselves the warfare of proselytism, 
both offensive and defensive, wherever and whenever 
material can be found which is probably available. 



—127— 
CHAPTER XV. 

(X)NVENTIONS, CREEDS, ETC. 

10. The church of apostolic times convoked no Assem- 
blies, by whatevername for the purpose of formulating 
creeds J making by-lavjs, nor for ordaining rituals and 
ceremonies for her observance, nor rules for her guidance 
and decorum. 

God's word given by inspiration through the apostles 
was all the law or creed they deemed necessary. Prom 
it they learned the lessons of purity of head, heart and 
body from idolatry, covetousness and licentiousness; 
and from envy, malice and strife. From it they learned 
justice and mercy to fellow-men in the commands, 
"love thy neighbor as thyself , " and * ^whatsoever ye 
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to 
them.'* Prom it they took their lessons concerning 
benevolence, — that therein no constraint should be 
used, but that each one should be his own judge of the 
extent and character of his liberality. Prom it they 
learned that when they had obeyed the commandments, 
kept the ordinances, offered the sacrifices, observed 
the ceremonies, and proclaimed the doctrines which 
God, through his apostles had authorized, they had the 
divme promise of approval. Prom it they learned that 
within itself it contained **all things which pertain to 
life and godliness, " and was suflacient to thoroughly 
furnish the man of God unto every good work," and 
that **every plant [institution] which the heavenly 
Father hath not planted [authorized] shall be rooted up" 
[destroyed]. 2 Peter 1: 3; 2 Tim. 3: 17; Matt. 15: 13. 
Beyond this they had no assurance; nor have we at the 
present. No man can say with certainty, nor hence 



-^128— 

with safety, that any service is acceptable to God which 
he has not authorized. That it has been ordained by 
assemblies, enacted by conventions, or approved by 
convocations of good men or eminent theologians, can 
afford nothing beyond conjecture that it will have God's 
approval. If the commandments, enactments and tra- 
ditions of men of this generation afford no better or more 
reliable criteria of what will be pleasing in the sight of 
God than when the Master was on earth, they certainly 
constitute a very slender thread on which to hang our 
hopes of the approving smile or the welcome plaudit, 
"well done good and faithful servant." Matt. 15: 2-9. 
The example of the disciples at Antioch, in sending 
to the **apostles and elders" at Jerusalem to settle a 
disputed question, is sometimes cited as authority for 
the convoking of assemblies and conventions for legis- 
lative purposes at the present time. Acts 15: 1-29. It 
should be remembered, however, that this was not a 
meeting of representatives chosen by popular vote in a 
number of different congregations. Nor were men and 
women induced to unite with the disciples except at 
the point of conviction. That there are prominent 
members of the various churches now who have no 
well defined convictions on religious matters, and who 
do not know enough about the scriptures to form such, 
is too well known to be denied by any well informed 
disciple. As representatives to conventions are now 
usually chosen, such members have as potent an influ- 
ence in shaping the policy of the church as the most 
devout and learned saint. Will it be seriously contend- 
ed that the present method of choosing representatives 
by majority of the congregations, irrespective of their 
piety or intelligence in scripture matters, to legislate 
for the church of God was contemplated by the writers 
of the New Testament? Whoever doubts the ignorance 



—129- 

concerning the scriptures which exists among other- 
wise intelligent people can easily be satisfied by sound- 
ing the average church member on the subject. 

Oh no, the men at Jerusalem to whom the Antioch 
congregation appealed for instruction and advice were 
not representatives chosen by the popular vote of 
popular worldly congregations, and sent to Jerusalem 
for legislative purposes; hence they furnish no preced- 
ent for such at the present time. They were under the 
direct influence of inspiration, and, instead of promul- 
gating their own opinions, they informed the brethren 
at Antioch that '*it seemed good ^0 i^efibZ^ Ghost and 
to us to lay on you no greater burden than these neces- 
sary things, " etc. Acts 15: 28. From this scripture 
no authority can be legitimately drawn for uninspired 
men to meet as an ecclesiastical tribunal, either self 
constituted or by the authority of the promiscuous vote 
of the congregations which they profess to represent, 
and assume the prerogative of performing either judi- 
cial or legislative functions for the church of God. 

We are now ready to hear some one ask the question, 
"Are you opposed to the Sunday School, the Y. P. S. 
C. E., the Y. W. C. A., the Y. M. 0. A., the W. C. T. 
U., the C. W. B. M., the B. Y. P. U., and the many 
other means of teaching and disseminating moral and 
religious truth? Our answer is that we are in favor of 
each and every article, item, and element in any and all 
of these and other associations which is in harmony 
with the will of God. Should we favor others? If so 
why? If not, how are we to determine which are in 
harmony with his will except by that which has been 
revealed in his divine word given through inspired 
men? If God has ever spoken to me except through 
the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments I have 
no knowledge of it. Whether he has spoken to others 



—180— 

in a different manner, I do not undertake to decide. In 
view of the fact, however, that so many people are 
claiming to have received personal expressions of 
approval from God in respect to conclusions which 
stand in direct opposition to one another, I must be ex- 
cused from adopting any of them unless supported by 
other evidence than self consciousness of their own 
correctness. If there be a single item in any of these 
institutions which is not in harmong with God's will, I 
must withhold my co-operation to that extent at least, 
as being useless, supererogatory, and hence product- 
ive of schism. If the church may introduce one un- 
authorized item, ceremony or practice into the wor- 
shipping assemblies, why not two? If two, why not 
four? eight? twenty? fifty, or a hundred, and so ad in- 
finitum? Where then, would be the logical stopping 
place? Where the line between a religious and secular 
meeting? Where, between a worshipping assemblage 
and one for entertainment and diversion? What the 
distinguishing elements between a meeting for wor- 
ship, instruction, and admonition and one for pleasure, 
entertainment and ostentation? Individually, the writer 
of these pages favors all the institutions which are 
authorized by either the precept or example of the 
apostles. In these institutions he favors each item, 
element, article and ordinance which the Scriptures 
authorize, introduced from the motives they authorize, 
in the manner and by the means they authorize, and, in 
order to prevent confusion, that each act, item and 
functionary be called by the name they authorize. What 
true disciple can object to this on scriptural grounds? 
Can any one doubt that he who persists in doing this is 
'^ledby the Spirit," and will eventually receive the 
welcome plaudit, "Well done good and faithful ser- 
Wt?'' 



—131— 

Reader, with what kind of a church or congregation 
should you and I be identified if not with one which 
does the things^ in the manner^ by the means^ from the 
motives, and for the reasons sanctioned by the sacred 
writings; avoiding all uncertainty and confusion by 
calling them by the names used in the Scriptures to 
express the same ideas? Wherever there exists such 
a congregation, ought not disciples of the community 
to regard it a valuable privilege to be identified there- 
with? If there be none such, may we not well question 
whether the church established by Christ and his 
apostles exists there in its complete identity? May 
not each true disciple be instrumental in helping others 
by advocating a complete return to the simplicity of 
the early church? a restoration of apostolic religion, its 
doctrines, its methods, its ordinances, its fruits? 

But, possibly the reader is now ready to ask, "Do 
you believe that success is attainable at the present 
time by the methods used by the apostles in their 
day?" We answer, that will depend largely upon what 
is to be regarded as constituting success. If by that 
term is meant numerical, financial, social and elocu- 
tionary supremacy, we would not venture to predict 
phenominal progress. ^ But if by success is meant the 
establishment of congregations of disciples on the one 
* 'sure foundation" "built upon apostles and prophets, 
Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone"; — if you 
mean the bringing of your local assembly to stand on 
purely scriptural grounds; — if you mean by success 
the elimination of every shadow of doubt from the 
spiritual equation, — the securing of God's approval for 
the congregation and every member thereof who ac- 
quiesces in its policy; — if, I say, this is what is meant 
by success, the following scriptures give a clearer and 
much more satisfactory answer than any I could make. 



—132— 

**As the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, 
and returneth not thither, — so shall my word be that 
goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto 
me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, 
and shall prosper in the thing whereunto I sent it." 
Isa. 55: 10, 11. *'God is no respecter of persons; but 
in every nation he that f eareth him, and worketh right- 
eousness is accepted of him. " Acts 10: 34, 35. *'Pear 
God and keep his commandments: for this is the whole 
duty of man. ' ' Eccl. 12:13. ' 'For this is [constitutes] 
the love of God, that we keep his commandments." 
1 John 5: 3. "For if ye do these things ye shall never 
fall: for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you 
abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of the Lord 
and Savior Jesus Christ. "* 2 Peter 1: 10, 11. '^Oh yes," 
says one, "we freely admit that they who do just what 
the Lord has commanded and go no further, will, per- 
sonally and individually receive the promised reward; 
but how about converting the world?" 

The Master has, likewise given us the answer to this 
question. In John 17: 11-21 he has clearly taught that 
the conversion of the world depends on the perfect 
unity of his people who preach the word. How can we 
be more purely and completely united than by all his 
people, in their aggregate capacity doing just what he 
has authorized, and leaving untouched that of which he 
has said nothing? If less attention were given to what 
people thinJc, and more to what God has said, on a given 
subject, we would come much nearer being united. If 
we appeal to the history of the Church, we find that she 
adds her testimony to the words we have cited from 
divine revelation. The increase of the church in both 
numbers and spiritual grace, was certainly far greater 
in proportion to the number engaged in promulgating 
the gospel when *'the multitude of them that believed 



—133— 

were of one heart and of one soul, " (Acts 4: 32) than it 
is at the present, or has been at any other time since the 
body has been divided into opposing and discordant 
factions, each with its *'Lo here! and its lo there!" If 
there be evidence of even a reasonably conclusive 
character to sustain the assumption that we cannot 
succeed in carrying out God's will and receiving his 
approval, either individually or collectively by doing all 
he has authorized, and limiting our religious work and 
worship to what he has authorized, the writer hereof 
will deem himself under lasting obligations to any one 
who will point out such evidence to him. 

God gave assurance to his people in apostolic times 
that by being united, and not otherwise, could they 
succeed in convincing the world of the divine character 
of his son. Both sacred and profane history concur in 
confirming the divine prediction. Since God's people 
have been rent into opposing factions, no such success 
has attended the proclamation of the gospel as when 
the Church presented a united front to the world. 
Why, then, should we be so loth to accept a fact which 
prophecy, both sacred and profane history, and our 
own observation and experience all concur in assert- 
ing? 

To say that the world cannot be reached and con- 
vinced by uniting on just what God has said, leaving 
out of our religious faith, doctrine and practice all 
those things for which we find no authority in the pre- 
cept or example of the Master or his apostles, but de- 
pend entirely on the wisdom and opinions of uninspired 
men; — to do this, I say is to deny the statement of 
the Master himself as contained in John 17: 21, as well 
as its confirmation by both history and experience. 

Reader, my task is done. If these pages shall be in- 
strumental in even partially dispelling the fogs of de- 



—134— 

nominational confusion which so often obscure the 
beneficent rays of the Sun of Righteousness from the 
good and honest heart and the enquiring eye; — if they 
may but help to disclose the strait and narrow way to 
but a limited number of the devout few by whom it is 
destined to be trod, — a life desire of the writer will 
have been realized. But if not, he will have the conso- 
lation of having contributed his mite to the religious 
literature of the day, conscious of no motive save the 
love of truth. 

If this humble contribution to the current literature 
of the times shall prove helpful, encouraging, practical, 
in separating the chaff of error from the grain of truth, 
help to circulate it: if visionary, impractical, erroneous, 
consign it to the tomb of oblivion. 

THE END. 



APB 25 XSM 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



'"^■i^^- 
;^?^:^^ 



hi^\ 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 985 508 5 ^ 









fJ^^Mi^^i^ 















